Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


) 

https://archive.org/details/egyptianobelisksOOgorr_O 


I 


EGYPTIAN  OBELISKS 


BY 


HENRY  H.  GORRINGE 

LIEUTENANT-COMMANDER  UNITED  STATES  NAVY 


FIFTY-ONE  FULL-PAGE  ILLUSTRATIONS 

THIRTY-TWO  ARTOTYPES,  EIGHTEEN  ENGRAVINGS,  AND  ONE  CHROMO-LITHOGRAPH 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

32  WAVERLEY  PLACE 
NEW  YORK 


COPYRIGHT  BY 

H.  H.  GORRINGE 

1882 


Press  of 

G.  P.  Putnam  s  Sons 

New  York 


ARTOTYPE,  E.  BIEHSTADT 


TO 

WILLIAM  H.  VANDERBILT 


IN  RECOGNITION  OF  THE  ENLIGHTENED  MUNIFICENCE  TO  WHICH 
NEW  YORK  IS  INDEBTED  FOR  THE  POSSESSION  OF  ONE  OF 
THE  MOST  INTERESTING  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  OLD 
WORLD,  AND  OF  THE  MOST  ANCIENT  RECORD 
OF  MAN  NOW  KNOWN  TO  EXIST  ON 
THE  AMERICAN  CONTINENT. 


iii 


. 


'  ■ 


m 

I  ■  >m 


■ 


.H 


PREFACE. 


A  T  the  request  of  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  I  long  ago  promised  to  prepare  for  him  an  account 
^  ^  of  the  transactions  which  led  to  his  undertaking  the  important  operation  so  clearly  and  so  fully 
described  by  him  in  this  book.  From  that  promise  I  may  hold  myself  released.  He  has  embodied  all 
the  essential  features  of  these  transactions  in  the  admirable  narrative  which  has  grown  under  his 
hands,  as  I  hoped  that  it  would,  into  a  full  and  interesting  history  of  the  Egyptian  obelisks. 

The  pains  and  skill  with  which  this  history  has  been  constructed  out  of  the  few  and  fragmentary 
records  which  remain  to  us  of  these  august  monuments,  illustrate  the  spirit  in  which  Lieut.-Com¬ 
mander  Gorringe  accepted  and  executed  the  trust  confided  to  him  by  Mr.  Vanderbilt  in  the  interest 

and  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  New  York. 

It  is  easy,  and  of  course  it  is  becoming,  to  applaud  the  success  of  such  an  enterprise. 

But  no  man  knows  so  well  as  I  do  the  discouragements  and  difficulties  through  which  success 
was  won,  and  it  appears  to  me  to  be  my  duty,  therefore,  to  bear  witness  here  once  for  all  to 
the  absolute  simplicity  of  purpose  and  single-minded  public  spirit  to  which  New  York  is  indebted 
for  the  possession  of  the  great  obelisk  of  Alexandria.  No  arguments  were  needed  to  commend  the 
project  either  to  Mr.  Vanderbilt,  whose  liberality  made  it  practicable,  or  to  Mr.  Evarts,  who  put  and 
kept  all  the  machinery  of  the  State  Department  at  work  to  accomplish  it.  But  from  the  day  in 

August,  1879,  on  which  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  sailed  for  Europe  on  his  mission,  to  the  day  in 

January,  1881,  on  which,  in  the  presence  of  assembled  thousands,  the  majestic  monolith  swung  at  a 
motion  of  his  lifted  finger  into  its  final  resting-place  in  the  Central  Park,  his  indomitable  energy  was 
confronted  at  every  step,  not  only  with  that  wholesome  and  bracing  public  indifference  to  such  under¬ 
takings  which  success  always  startles  into  enthusiasm,  but  with  all  the  obstacles  which  private 
greed  and  the  eternal  quarantine  of  official  imbecility  could  put  in  his  way.  He  has  repeatedly 
acknowledged  his  obligations  to  his  able  and  well-selected  assistants,  Lieutenant  Seaton  Schroeder 
of  the  United  States  Navy,  and  Mr.  Frank  Price,  of  New  York.  But  his  best  coadjutors  were  his 
own  purpose  and  his  own  patience,  of  which  he  cannot  speak,  and  which  I  put  on  record  here. 

W.  H.  H. 


V 


j 

I 


119 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Removal  of  the  Alexandrian  Obelisk,  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle,”  to  New  York. 


PAGE. 


CHAPTER  II. 


The  Archaeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


59 


CHAPTER  III. 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


77 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 


96 


CHAPTER  V. 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 


1 10 


CHAPTER  VI. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


119 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Notes  on  the  Ancient  Methods  of  Quarrying,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 


146 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


Analysis  of  the  Materials  and  Metals  Found  with  the  Obelisk  at  Alexandria. 


161 


Index. 


1 77 


,  • 


* 


I  is  9 


. 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PLATE. 


William  H.  Vanderbilt.  ....  Artotype. 

I. — The  Alexandrian  obelisk,  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle.”  Alexandria,  Egypt,  October, 

1879.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Artotype. 

II. — Elevation  of  the  obelisk,  raised  from  pedestal,  with  machinery  in  position  for 

turning.  Alexandria.  .....  Photo-engraving . 

III.  — Side  elevation.  Preparations  for  releasing  machinery.  Alexandria.  “ 

IV.  — Excavations  at  Alexandria,  showing  pedestal,  steps  and  position  of  crabs.  Artotype. 

V. — The  crabs  as  found.  .......  “ 

VI. — The  staging.  November  5,  1879.  .....  “ 

VII. — The  obelisk  encased  and  stayed.  The  hoisting  shears  with  trunnions  suspended 


FACING. 

Dedication. 


PAGE. 

1 

2 
2 

4 

6 

8 


to  them.  .... 

• 

.  Artotype. 

IO 

VIII. — Turning  the  obelisk.  December  6,  1879. 

• 

4  4 

12 

IX. — The  obelisk  horizontal.  December  6,  1879. 

• 

44 

H 

X. — City  and  port  of  Alexandria.  The  overland  route 

proposed. 

The  water  route 

followed.  .... 

• 

Photo-engraving . 

l6 

XI. — Steps  and  pedestal.  Section  and  plan. 

• 

44 

18 

XII. — Preparations  for  launching.  Section  through  caisson 

and  Obelisk. 

Caisson  afloat. 

Alexandria.  .... 

. 

Photo- engraving . 

20 

a. — Lowering  and  launching  the  caisson. 

• 

4  4 

20 

XIII. — Embarking  the  pedestal. 

• 

.  Artotype. 

22 

XIV. — Embarking  the  obelisk. 

• 

44 

24 

XV. — Embarking  the  obelisk.  Section  and  plan. 

• 

Photo-engraving. 

24 

XVI. — The  steamer  “  Dessoug,”  with  obelisk  on  board 

,  ready  for 

departure  from 

Alexandria.  .... 

• 

Artotype. 

26 

XVII. — Disembarking  the  pedestal.  New  York. 

• 

<  t 

28 

XVIII. — Trucking  the  pedestal.  .... 

• 

44 

30 

b. — Laying  the  corner-stone. 

• 

4 4 

32 

XIX. — Obelisk  on  pontoons  entering  landing-stage  at  96th  Street,  New 

York.  Section 

and  plan  of  disembarking  stage. 

•  • 

Photo- engraving. 

34 

XX. — Disembarking  the  obelisk. 

•  • 

Artotype. 

36 

XXI. — Cross  section  through  obelisk  and  pontoons.  Side  elevation 

of  obelisk  and 

pontoons.  .... 

•  • 

Photo- engraving. 

38 

XXII. — Obelisk  crossing  the  Hudson  River  Railroad. 

• 

.  Artotype. 

40 

XXIII.— Route  of  the  obelisk  in  New  York. 

•  • 

Photo -eng  raving. 

42 

XXIV. — Land  transportation.  Turning  apparatus.  Trestle  in 

Central  Park.  “ 

44 

c. — Iron  channels  and  marine  railway. 

. 

44 

46 

IX 


X 


List  of  Illustrations. 


PLATE. 

XXV. — Transporting  the  obelisk.  ......  Artotype. 

XXVI. — Obelisk  crossing  main  drive  in  Central  Park. 

XXVII.- — Turning  the  obelisk.  The  obelisk  horizontal.  ....  “ 

d. — Turning  the  obelisk.  Turned  45°.  .....  “ 

XXVIII. — Placing  the  obelisk  on  its  pedestal  in  Central  Park,  January  22,  1881. 

Photo-engraving. 

XXIX. — The  New  York  obelisk.  .......  Artotype. 

XXX.  — The  four  faces  of  the  pyramidion.  .....  “ 

XXXI.  — The  four  sides  of  the  obelisk.  ......  “ 

XXXII. — Antique  model  of  the  temple  of  On  (Heliopolis).  ...  “ 

e.  — Portrait  of  Cleopatra,  photographed  from  her  coins.  “ 

XXXIII. — French  apparatus  for  lowering  and  erecting  the  Luxor  obelisk.  Photo-engraving. 


XXXIV. — Embarkation  of  the  French  obelisk.  ....  “ 

XXXV. — The  English  method  of  erecting  the  London  obelisk.  .  “ 

XXXVI. — The  English  cylinder  for  sea  transport.  ....  “ 

XXXVII. — The  London  obelisk.  ......  Artotype. 

XXXVIII. — Apparatus  for  transporting  and  erecting  the  Vatican  obelisk.  Photo-engraving. 

XXXIX.— The  remaining  obelisk  and  ruins  of  temple  at  Luxor.  .  .  Artotype. 

XL. — The  obelisks  at  Karnak.  ......  “ 


XLI.— The  obelisk  at  Heliopolis  and  Poinpey’s  Pillar  at  Alexandria.  .  “ 

XLII. — The  Constantinople  and  Paris  obelisks.  .  .  .  .  “ 

XLIII. — The  twelve  Roman  obelisks.  .....  “ 

Re-erecting  the  Constantinople  obelisk  in  the  fourth  century  A.  D. 

XLIV. — Thin  sections  of  the  New  York  obelisk  in  polarized  light.  Chromo-lithograph. 

XLV. — The  Khedives  Ismai'l  and  Tewfik.  .....  Artotype. 


FACING 

PAGE. 

48 

5o 

52 

54 

56 
58 
62 
64 
70 
72 
84 
86 
104 
106 
108 
1 12 
1 20 
122 
124 
126 
128 
159 
162 

1 75 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN  OBELISK.  (CLEOPATRA’S  NEEDLE.) 


CHAPTER  I. 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  OBELISK. 

SITUATION  AND  SURROUNDINGS  OF  THE  OBELISK  IN  ALEXANDRIA. 

THE  standing  obelisk  of  Alexandria  was  generally  the  first  and  the  last  of  Egypt’s  numerous 
monuments  to  be  visited  by  travellers.  The  accompanying  illustration  recalls  the  feeling  of 
disgust  aroused  by  some  of  its  surroundings.  Something  more  than  curiosity  was  needed  to  induce 
one  to  approach  near  enough  and  remain  long  enough  to  examine  and  appreciate  it.  Situated  in  the 
outskirts  of  the  city,  near  the  Ramleh  railway  depot,  it  was  a  familiar  object  to  the  foreign  element, 

many  of  whom  live  at  Ramleh  and  passed  it  twice,  often  four  times  a  day  ;  and  yet  no  one  deemed  it 

worthy  of  protection  and  care,  even  to  the  extent  of  preventing  its  defacement  and  the  accumulation  of 
offal  around  it.  Two  men  made  a  business  of  breaking  pieces  from  the  angle  of  the  shaft  and  edges  of 
the  intaglios  for  sale  to  relic  hunters.  The  disagreeable  odors  and  clamors  for  backsheesh  1  hastened  the 
departure  of  strangers,  who  rarely  devoted  more  than  a  few  seconds  to  its  examination.  It  would  be 
impossible  for  any  thing  to  have  been  more  neglected  and  less  appreciated  than  was  the  Alexandrian 
obelisk  by  the  residents  of  Alexandria  and  tourists  who  passed  through  the  city  en  route  to  the  Nile. 

There  is,  however,  much  that  is  attractive  and  worthy  of  attention  in  its  former  surroundings.  The 
Arab  fort,  to  the  left  in  the  picture,  stands  on  the  ruins  of  one  of  those  magnificent  structures  that 
adorned  the  ancient  city  and  made  second  only  to  Rome  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
shore  is  strewn  with  huge  blocks  of  granite,  syenite,  and  marble,  many  of  them  covered  with  Egyptian 
hieroglyphs  and  Greek  and  Roman  inscriptions.  Fragments  of  columns  and  capitals  lie  scattered  about 
and  buried  in  the  debris  that  has  accumulated  in  the  vicinity  ;  the  bottom  of  the  sea  is  so  cumbered 
with  the  ruins  of  these  structures  that  the  shore  is  difficult  to  approach,  even  in  a  small  boat,  nearer 
than  half  a  mile.  The  foundation  of  one  very  large  building  is  distinctly  traceable  under  water  when 
the  sea  is  smooth ;  and  about  one  hundred  yards  from  the  beach  there  is  a  broken  column  sticking 

up  from  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  nearly  equal  in  diameter  to  Pompey’s  pillar.  This  was  the  quarter  of 

the  royal  palaces,  which  included  the  gymnasium,  the  museum,  containing  the  famous  library,  and  the 
Caesareum.  It  was  at  the  entrance  to  the  last-mentioned  that  the  Romans,  to  commemorate  their 
conquests,  re-erected  the  obelisks  that  had  been  removed  from  the  ancient  Egyptian  temple  of  On,  at 
Heliopolis.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  out  of  place  and  less  in  keeping  with  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  designed  than  was  the  obelisk  as  it  stood  at  Alexandria. 

The  gradual  subsidence  of  the  land  in  this  part  of  North  Africa  has  caused  the  sea  to  approach 
nearer  to  the  site  of  the  obelisk,  until  it  was  about  eighty  feet  from  the  base,  and  its  level  about  the 
same  as  that  of  the  lower  step.  The  constant  washings  of  the  surf  had  begun  to  affect  the  foundation, 
and  for  the  last  fifteen  years  the  obelisk  has  been  gradually  inclining  more  and  more  toward  the  sea. 
In  a  few  years  it  must  have  fallen,  and  almost  certainly  have  been  broken  by  the  fall.  But  a  more 
ignoble  fate  threatened  it,  in  the  proposition  of  some  of  the  foreign  residents  of  Alexandria  to  erect  an 
apartment-house  on  the  adjacent  ground  around  the  obelisk,  which  was  to  adorn  the  court-yard. 

Originally  designed  to  symbolize  the  highest  attribute  of  nature,  the  re-creative  power ;  forming  an 


1  Arabic  for  gift. 


2 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

essential  feature  of  one  of  the  most  famous  temples  ever  erected  by  man,  in  which  Moses  was  educated 
and  of  which  he  became  a  high-priest ;  the  votive  offering  of  one  of  the  most  celebrated  Pharaohs,  and 
bearing  the  records  of  another  equally  celebrated,  the  obelisk  had  become  a  Roman  trophy  to  commmemo- 
rate  the  subjugation  of  Egypt,  and  was  threatened  either  with  destruction  by  neglect,  or  preservation  as  a 
means  of  advertising  a  hotel  or  apartment-house.  His  Highness,  Ismail,  the  Khedive,  who  realized  the  im¬ 
portance  of  preserving  so  valuable  and  interesting  a  relic  and  record  of  the  past,  and  his  own  inability  to  do 
so,  merits  the  thanks  not  only  of  the  nation  to  whom  he  intrusted  its  preservation,  but  of  all  those  of  every 
nation  who  appreciate  the  necessity  of  preserving  such  monuments  as  long  as  they  will  resist  the  ravages 
of  time.  Some  objection  has  been  made  to  removing  it  from  its  “  antique  surroundings.”  The  most 
prominent  surroundings  in  Alexandria  were  a  railway  depot,  a  new  apartment-house,  and  an  Arab  fort. 

NEGOTIATIONS  THAT  LED  TO  THE  GIFT  AND  ITS  REMOVAL. 

The  first  suggestion  looking  to  the  removal  of  an  obelisk  from  Egypt  to  the  United  States  was  made 
by  His  Highness,  Ismai'1,  the  Khedive  of  Egypt,  at  the  time  of  the  opening  of  the  Suez  Canal  in  1869, 
to  Mr.  William  Henry  Hurlbert.  In  September,  1877,  after  the  removal  of  the  prostrate  obelisk  of 
Alexandria  to  England  by  Mr.  John  Dixon,  Mr.  Louis  Sterne  of  London,  a  friend  of  Mr.  Dixon,  being 
in  New  York,  informed  Mr.  Hurlbert,  then  editor  of  the  New  York  World ,  that  Mr.  Dixon,  through  his 
relations  with  Egypt,  could  secure  the  gift  to  the  United  States  of  the  standing  obelisk  at  Alexandria, 
and  that  he  would  be  glad  to  do  this,  and  to  undertake  to  remove  it  to  New  York,  if  the  cost  of  the 
operation  could  be  defrayed.  Mr.  Hurlbert  requested  Mr.  Sterne  to  open  a  correspondence  on  the 
subject  with  Mr.  Dixon,  which  resulted  in  an  understanding  that  Mr.  Dixon  would  secure  and  bring  to 
America  the  standing  obelisk  of  Alexandria,  if  the  sum  of  fifteen  thousand  pounds  sterling  could  be 
guaranteed  to  him.  After  consulting  with  Mr.  Chauncey  M.  Depew  and  Judge  Ashbel  Green,  Mr. 
Hurlbert  put  himself  in  communication  with  Mr.  William  H.  Vanderbilt,  and  Mr.  Vanderbilt,  as  the  result 
of  a  single  conversation  on  the  subject,  liberally  agreed  to  guarantee  the  payment  of  the  sum  named 
by  Mr.  Dixon.  This  was  at  once  cabled  to  London  by  Mr.  Hurlbert.  A  congratulatory  reply  by  cable 
was  received  from  Mr.  Sterne  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Dixon.  But  a  correspondence  followed  from  which  it 
soon  appeared  that  Mr.  Dixon  relied  upon  Mr.  Hurlbert  to  secure  the  gift  of  the  obelisk  through  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  This  materially  changed  the  character  of  the  negotiation  ;  but 
finding  Mr.  Vanderbilt  most  willing  to  stand  by  his  liberal  offer  as  long  as  might  be  necessary  to 
secure  the  desired  result,  Mr.  Hurlbert  consulted  Mr.  Evarts,  then  Secretary  of  State,  who  cordially  agreed 
to  instruct  the  agents  of  the  State  Department  to  undertake  the  matter.  At  the  instance  of  Mr. 
Evarts,  a  letter  was  accordingly  written  to  him  as  Secretary  of  State  by  Mr.  Henry  G.  Stebbins,  then 
Commissioner  of  Public  Parks  of  New  York  City,  requesting  him  to  open  negotiations  with  the  Khedive 
for  securing  the  standing  obelisk  of  Alexandria  for  New  York  City.  Mr.  Evarts,  in  a  letter  dated 
October  19,  1877,  wrote  to  Consul-General  E.  E.  Farman  that,  “in  view  of  the  public  object  to  be 
subserved,  you  are  instructed  to  use  all  proper  means  of  furthering  the  wishes  expressed  in  Mr.  Stebbins’ 
letter,”  a  copy  of  which  was  enclosed.  In  a  letter  dated  November  24,  1877,  Mr.  Farman  wrote  to  Mr. 
Evarts  as  follows  :  “  I  fear,  however,  that  there  will  be  serious  opposition  to  the  removal  of  the  obelisk 
from  the  city  of  Alexandria,  so  much,  in  fact,  that  although  the  Khedive  might  personally  desire  to 
gratify  the  wishes  of  the  citizens  of  New  York,  he  would  not  think  it  best  to  grant  their  request.” 

On  March  4,  1878,  Mr.  Farman  reported  to  Mr.  Evarts  that  he  had  had  an  interview  with  the 
Khedive,  who  “made  no  special  objection  to  the  transportation  of  an  obelisk  to  the  city  of  New  York,” 
and  that  “  during  the  conversation  he  (the  Khedive)  had  said  that  he  did  not  think  it  best  to  talk 
about  the  removal  of  the  one  at  Alexandria,  but  he  would  take  into  consideration  the  question  of  one 
of  those  at  Ancient  Thebes.” 

From  March  4,  1878,  to  May  17,  1879,  Mr.  Farman  was  untiring  in  his  efforts  to  obtain  an  obelisk. 
His  negotiations  were  conducted  verbally  until  the  latter  date,  when  the  following  correspondence  ensued. 


PLATE  11. 


EXPLANATION 

B _  Trunnions 

C _  Tie  rods 

D_  Steel,  heel  beams 
E_  Steel  towers 

F _ Wooden,  bed  beams 

Cr_  Masonry"  piers 

L_  .Steel  bolts  for  clamping  trunnions 


ELEVATION  OF  OBELISK 
RAISED  FROM  PEDESTAL  WITH  MACHINERY 
INTPOSlflON  FOR  TURNING 
ALEXANDRIA 


03  ^ 


CU  o 


X 


|  Slo  8  « 

J  %  H  E-5  CD  Pn  *o 

"'MM 

<bWWh 


Plate  III. 


3 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


Mr.  FARMAN  to  CHfiRIF  PACHA,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


( Translation  from  the  French .) 


Cairo,  May  17,  1879. 

Excellency  :  Referring  to  the  different  conversations  that  I  have  had  the  honor  to  have  with  your  Excel¬ 
lency,  in  which  you  have  informed  me  that  the  government  of  His  Highness  the  Khedive  is  disposed  to  present  to 
the  city  of  New  York,  to  be  transported  and  erected  there,  the  obelisk  of  Alexandria,  I  should  be  pleased  if  your 
Excellency  would  have  the  kindness  to  definitely  confirm  in  writing  the  gift  of  this  monument. 

It  is  understood  that  its  transportation  is  to  be  effected  at  the  expense  of  certain  citizens  of  the  said  city  of  New 
York. 


I  beg  to  assure  your  Excellency,  in  advance  of  the  warm  thanks  of  my  government  for  having  thus  favorably 
responded  to  the  representations  I  have  made  to  the  government  of  His  Highness  the  Khedive,  in  accordance  with  the 
instructions  that  I  had  received  on  this  subject. 

I  have  every  reason  to  hope  that  the  monument,  which  is  thus  soon  to  be  transported  and  set  up  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  will  always  be  a  souvenir  and  a  pledge  of  the  friendship  that  has  ever  existed  between  the  government  of 
the  United  States  and  that  of  His  Highness  the  Khedive. 

I  beg  your  Excellency  to  accept  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

(Signed)  E.  E.  FARMAN. 


CHERIF  PACHA,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  TO  Mr.  FARMAN. 

(  Translation?) 

[Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  No.  343.] 

Cairo,  May  18,  1879. 

Mr.  Agent  and  Consul-General:  I  have  taken  cognizance  of  the  dispatch  which  you  did  me  the  honor  of 
writing  me  on  the  17th  of  the  current  month  of  May. 

In  reply,  I  hasten  to  transmit  you  the  assurance,  Mr.  Agent  and  Consul-General,  that  the  government  of  the 
Khedive,  having  taken  into  consideration  your  representations  and  the  desire  which  you  have  expressed  in  the  name  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  of  America,  consents,  in  fact,  to  make  a  gift  to  the  city  of  New  York  of  the 
obelisk  known  as  Cleopatra’s  Needle,  which  is  at  Alexandria  on  the  sea-shore. 

The  local  authorities  shall  therefore  be  directed  to  deliver  this  obelisk  to  the  representative  of  the  American 
government,  and  also  to  facilitate,  in  every  thing  that  shall  depend  upon  them,  the  removal  of  this  monument,  which, 
according  to  the  terms  of  your  dispatch,  is  to  be  done  at  the  exclusive  cost  and  expense  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

I  am  happy,  Mr.  Agent  and  Consul-General,  to  have  to  announce  to  you  this  decision,  which,  while  giving  to  the 
great  city  an  Egyptian  monument,  to  which  is  attached,  as  you  know,  a  real  archaeological  interest,  will  also  be,  I  am 
as  yourself  convinced,  another  souvenir  and  another  pledge  of  the  friendship  that  has  constantly  existed  between  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  that  of  the  Khedive. 

Be  pleased  to  accept,  Mr.  Agent  and  Consul-General,  the  expression  of  my  high  consideration. 

(Signed)  CHERIF. 


CONSUL-GENERAL  FARMAN  to  SECRETARY  EVARTS. 

U.  S.  Agency  and  Consulate-General,  Cairo,  May  22,  1879. 
Honorable  W.  M.  EVARTS,  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  negotiations  entered  into  to  procure  an  Egyptian  obelisk  for  the 
city  of  New  York  have  been  successful. 

The  government  of  His  Highness  the  Khedive  has  generously  given  to  that  city  the  obelisk  at  Alexandria  known 
as  “Cleopatra’s  Needle.” 

I  enclose  a  copy  of  the  original  notes  in  French  that  were  exchanged  between  his  Excellency,  Ch6rif  Pacha,  and 
myself  on  this  subject,  after  a  verbal  understanding  had  been  arrived  at,  and  also  their  translation  into  English. 

The  gift  of  this  ancient  and  well-known  monument  cannot  be  regarded  as  other  than  a  very  great  mark  of  favor 
on  the  part  of  the  government  of  Egypt  toward  that  of  the  United  States,  and  a  proof  of  its  high  appreciation  of  the 
friendship  that  has  ever  existed  between  these  countries. 

The  two  obelisks  that  have  been  removed  to  Europe  in  modern  times  were  obtained  under  circumstances  entirely 
different  from  those  now  existing,  and  they  were  themselves  objects  which,  in  consequence  of  their  situation  and 
condition,  were  much  less  appreciated  than  Cleopatra’s  Needle.  They  were  both  presented  many  years  ago  by 
Mohammed  Ali,  one  to  the  English  and  the  other  to  the  French  government.  The  latter  now  at  Paris  was  taken 
nearly  half  a  century  since  from  Luxor,  in  the  vicinity  of  which  are  three  other  obelisks  and  many  colossal  ruins,  which 
were  at  that  time  seldom  visited  by  Europeans.  The  one  lately  taken  to  London  had  long  been  lying  on  the  shore  of  the 
sea  at  Alexandria,  nearly  or  wholly  buried  in  the  sand.  That,  however,  which  is  given  to  the  city  of  New  York  is  still 
standing,  and  is  the  veritable  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle,”  and  the  only  obelisk  properly  known  by  that  name.  It  constitutes, 
with  Pompey’s  pillar,  the  only  relics  of  the  ancient  city  of  Alexandria  that  are  of  any  interest.  It  is  known  by  every 
school-boy  in  the  United  States,  and  its  removal  to  New  York  will  long  remain  one  of  the  marked  events  of  history. 


4 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

From  the  inscriptions  upon  it  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  first  erected  at  Heliopolis  (On  of  the  Scriptures) 
in  the  reign  of  Thothmes  III,  about  1590  years  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  according  to  the 
chronology  of  Marietta  Bey,  or  about  150  years  later  according  to  that  of  Wilkinson. 

The  site  of  Heliopolis,  which  is  about  five  miles  east  of  Cairo,  is  now  marked  by  a  single  monolith,  though 
that  ancient  city  was  reputed  to  have  been  “  full  of  obelisks.”  The  one,  however,  which  remains  is  the  oldest  of 
all  the  large  Egyptian  monuments  of  this  character,  having  been  erected  in  the  reign  of  Usortesen  I,  nearly 
3,000  years  before  Christ. 

Heliopolis,  or,  as  the  word  imports,  the  city  of  the  sun,  was  known  by  the  ancient  Egyptians  as  the  dwelling 
of  Ra  (Helios).  The  Sun  Temple  of  this  city  was  of  a  very  remote  origin,  and  having  been  destroyed  or 
neglected  was  restored  by  Amenhat  I,  the  immediate  predecessor  of  Usortesen  I. 

The  obelisks  at  Heliopolis  were  undoubtedly  placed  in  pairs  at  the  entrance  of  the  Sun  Temple,  perhaps 
on  each  of  its  four  sides.  They  were  emblems  of  the  sun’s  rays,  and  were  therefore  frequently  dedicated  to 
this  god  and  to  his  temple.  The  characters  engraven  in  the  granite  were  originally  filled  with  gold  or  gilded 
bronze,  and  were  spoken  of  as  “  illuminating  the  world  with  their  rays.” 

Heliopolis  was  also  the  seat  of  one  of  the  most  famous  schools  of  antiquity,  but  the  city  had  lost  its 
importance  and  fallen  into  decay  some  time  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era. 

Cleopatra’s  Needle  was  taken  to  Alexandria  previous  to  or  during  the  reign  of  Tiberius  (A.  D.  14-37),  ar*d 
was  placed,  with  its  companion  now  in  London,  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  in  front  of  the  Temple  of  Caesar. 
Why  it  bears  the  name  of  Cleopatra’s  Needle  is  not  known.  She  died  about  sixty  years  before  the  completion 
of  this  temple,  but  it  may  have  been  commenced  by  her.  The  central  row  of  hieroglyphical  inscriptions  on  the 
obelisk  refers  to  Thothmes  III,  who  is  here  called  the  “Child  of  the  Sun,”  and  said  to  be  “endowed  with  power, 
life,  and  stability.”  Other  inscriptions  were  afterward  added  by  Ramses  II,  and  by  another  Pharaoh. 

I  hope  to  be  able  to  send  you  hereafter  a  full  ^translation  of  all  its  hieroglyphics. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  E.  E.  FARMAN. 

SECRETARY  EVARTS  TO  CONSUL-GENERAL  FARMAN. 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Jzme  13,  1879. 

E.  E.  FARMAN,  Esquire. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  your  dispatch  of  the  22d  ultimo,  with  its  enclosures,  in  which 
you  inform  the  Department  that  the  negotiations  entered  into  to  procure  an  Egyptian  obelisk  for  the  city  of 
New  York  have  been  successful,  and  that  the  government  of  His  Highness  the  Khedive  has  generously  presented 
to  that  city  the  obelisk  known  as  Cleopatra’s  Needle. 

It  is  a  source  of  great  gratification  to  this  government,  that  through  the  generosity  of  the  Khedive  this 
country  is  soon  to  come  into  the  possession  of  such  an  interesting  monument  of  antiquity  as  Cleopatra’s  Needle, 
and  you  are  therefore  instructed  to  inform  His  Highness  that  the  great  favor  he  has  conferred  upon  this 
Republic  by  making  this  gift  is  highly  appreciated,  and  that  it  is  felt  that  such  a  rare  mark  of  friendship  cannot 
but  tend  to  still  further  strengthen  the  amicable  relations  which  have  ever  subsisted  between  the  two  countries, 
and  will  cause  the  memory  of  the  Khedive  to  be  long  and  warmly  cherished  by  the  American  people. 

The  historical  account  of  the  obelisks  of  Egypt  which  your  dispatch  contains  has  been  read  with  interest. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  W.  M.  EVARTS. 

The  successful  issue  of  the  American  negotiations  having  been  at  once  communicated  by  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State  to  Mr.  Hurlbert,  that  gentleman  immediately  notified  Mr.  John  Dixon  that  the  standing 
obelisk  of  Alexandria  had  been  secured,  and  that  if  he  was  still  prepared  to  undertake  to  bring  it  to 
New  York  the  sum  of  fifteen  thousand  pounds  originally  named  by  him  would  be  guaranteed  to  him  by 
Mr.  Vanderbilt,  who,  however,  desired  that  no  public  mention  of  his  name  should  be  made  in  connection 
with  the  subject.  Mr.  John  Dixon  replied  at  once  to  Mr.  Hurlbert  that  he  would  undertake  the  removal, 
but  that  he  could  not  do  this  unless  the  sum  named  could  be  increased  to  twenty  thousand  pounds. 
Mr.  Dixon’s  experiences  with  the  ship  “Cleopatra,”  in  which  he  conveyed  the  prostrate  obelisk  of  Alex¬ 
andria  to  London  doubtless  explained  this  advance  in  terms.  Mr.  Hurlbert,  without  consulting  Mr. 
Vanderbilt  on  the  subject,  at  once  declined  to  entertain  this  new  proposition,  and  at  his  request  Mr. 
Henry  G.  Stebbins  kindly  undertook  to  receive  for  him  propositions  for  the  transportation  of  the 
monolith  to  the  United  States.  Several  such  propositions  were  received  and  submitted  to  Mr.  Hurlbert, 
but  none  of  them  were  approved  by  him. 


EXCAVATIONS  AT  ALEXANDRIA,  SHOWING  PEDESTAL,  STEPS,  AND  POSITION  OF  CRABS. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


5 


Negotiations  were  still  pending,  when  my  attention  was  called  to  the  announcement  in  the  World  of  June 
17,  1879,  that  the  obelisk  had  been  given  to  the  United  States  and  the  money  needed  for  its  removal  had 
been  provided.  Previously,  however,  I  had  become  interested  in  the  subject  through  a  visit  to  Alexandria, 
where  the  removal  of  the  fallen  obelisk  to  London  was  frequently  discussed.  I  communicated  my  intention  to 
undertake  the  work  of  removal  to  no  one  but  Lieutenant  Seaton  Schroeder,  U.  S.  N.,  and  obtained,  under 
difficulties,  the  needed  information  from  which  to  develop  my  plans.  I  examined  those  of  the  French  officer, 
Lebas,  who  removed  one  of  the  Luxor  obelisks  to  Paris,  and  those  of  Mr.  Dixon,  who  removed  the  fallen 
obelisk  to  London,  and  rejected  both  as  unsuited  to  the  conditions  under  which  the  standing  obelisk  of  Alex¬ 
andria  must  be  removed  to  New  York. 

Careful  development  of  original  plans  and  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  executing  them  resulted  in  an  offer 
to  Mr.  Hurlbert  to  undertake  the  work,  and,  eventually,  in  the  receipt,  through  Mr.  Stebbins,  of  the  following 
letter. 


Mr.  VANDERBILT  to  LT.-COMDR.  GORRINGE. 


Lieut.  H.  H.  GORRINGE,  U.  S.  Navy. 


New  York,  Aug.  4,  1879. 


Dear  Sir:  I  have  learned  that  you  have  or  can  procure  the  facilities  to  remove  to  the  city  of  New  York  the 
obelisk  now  standing  at  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  known  as  “Cleopatra’s  Needle.” 

As  I  desire  that  this  obelisk  may  be  secured  for  the  city  of  New  York,  I  make  you  the  following  proposition  :  If 
you  will  take  down  and  remove  said  obelisk  from  its  present  position  to  this  city,  and  place  it  on  such  site  as  may  be 
selected  with  my  approval  by  the  Commissioners  of  Parks,  and  furnish  and  construct  at  your  own  expense  on  said 
site  a  foundation  of  mason  work  and  granite  base  of  such  form  and  dimensions  as  said  Commissioners  and  myself  may 
approve,  I  will,  on  the  completion  of  the  whole  work,  pay  to  you  seventy-five  thousand  dollars. 

It  is  understood,  however,  that  there  is  to  be  no  liability  on  my  part  until  the  obelisk  shall  be  so  received  and 
placed  in  position  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  the  same  to  be  in  as  good  condition  as  it  now  is.  It  is  understood, 
further,  that  this  agreement  binds  also  my  executors  and  administrators;  you  to  accept  this  proposition  in  writing  on 
the  receipt  thereof,  and  agree  to  execute  the  same,  and  complete  the  work  fully  in  every  respect  within  one  year  from 
the  date  hereof. 

Very  truly  yours, 


(Signed)  W.  H.  VANDERBILT. 


New  York,  Aug.  6,  1879. 

Mr.  W.  H.  VANDERBILT. 

Dear  Sir:  I  hereby  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  August  4,  1879,  relating  to  the  removal  of  the 
obelisk  from  Alexandria,  Egypt,  to  New  York,  and  its  erection  on  a  site  to  be  selected  with  your  approval,  and  I 
accept  the  proposition  and  the  conditions  named  therein. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  HENRY  H.  GORRINGE,  Lieut. -Comdr.,  U.  S.  N. 


An  almost  insurmountable  difficulty  in  securing  the  money  to  carry  on  the  work  ensued  ;  but  it  was 
finally  overcome  by  the  tender  of  a  sum  sufficient  to  commence  operations  by  a  friend  of  many  years’  standing, 
Mr.  Louis  F.  Whitin,  of  New  York,  who  was  unwilling  to  let  such  an  important  work  escape  me  for  want  of 
means  to  undertake  it.  This  essential  preliminary  having  been  arranged,  a  leave  of  absence  was  granted  to 
me  by  the  Navy  Department  at  the  request  of  Secretary  Evarts,  who  also  handed  me  the  following  letters. 


6 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  Aug.  i,  1879. 

N.  D.  COMANOS,  Esquire,  Vice-Consul-General  of  the  United  States  at  Cairo,  Egypt. 

Sir:  Referring  to  Mr.  Farman’s  correspondence  with  the  Department  in  regard  to  the  presentation,  by  His 
Highness  the  late  Khedive,  of  an  obelisk  to  the  city  of  New  York,  I  have  now  to  inform  you  that,  at  the  request  of 
the  citizens  of  that  city  interested  in  securing  that  munificent  gift  of  His  Highness  for  the  adornment  of  their  native 
city,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  has  granted  to  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  leave  of 
absence  for  any  requisite  time  for  the  purpose  of  superintending  the  transportation,  from  Alexandria  to  New  York,  of 
the  obelisk  known  as  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle.” 

This  dispatch  will  be  handed  to  you  in  person  by  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe,  who  is  about  to  proceed  to 
Egypt  in  fulfilment  of  the  interesting  and  responsible  task  entrusted  to  him.  I  desire  to  bespeak  for  him  all  proper 
official  and  personal  aid  you  can  render  him  in  his  undertaking,  and  especially  that  you  will  accredit  him  to  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Khedive  as  the  person  authorized  on  behalf  of  this  government  to  receive,  in  the  name  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  and  to  convey  thither,  His  Highness’  generous  gift. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  W.  M.  EVARTS. 


Department  of  State,  Washington,  Aug.  21,  1879. 

N.  D.  COMANOS,  Esquire,  U.  S.  Vice-Consul-General  at  Cairo,  Egypt. 

Sir:  I  have  to  inform  you  that  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  has  been  detailed 
and  directed  by  this  government  to  proceed  to  Alexandria,  Egypt,  and  receive  the  obelisk  now  standing  in  that  city 
and  known  as  Cleopatra’s  Needle  and  lately  presented  by  the  government  of  Egypt  to  the  city  of  New  York,  and  to 
transport  the  same  to  the  last-named  city. 

You  are  instructed  to  officially  inform  the  Egyptian  government,  through  its  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  that 
Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe  is  authorized,  on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  as  its 
representative,  to  receive  and  remove  the  obelisk. 

You  will  also  extend  to  him  such  aid  as  you  may  be  able  to  give  and  as  he  shall  require  in  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  his  work. 

He  will  ship  to  Alexandria  a  considerable  amount  of  machinery,  lumber,  etc.,  to  be  employed  in  removing 
the  obelisk  from  its  present  position  and  placing  it  on  board  the  steamer  that  will  be  sent  to  receive  it,  and  you 
will  aid  him,  if  you  are  able  to  do  so,  in  getting  this  machinery  through  the  custom-house  without  payment  of  duties. 
As  the  machinery  is  only  to  be  used  in  Egypt  in  removing  and  embarking  the  obelisk,  and  then  is  to  be  imme¬ 
diately  re-shipped  to  the  United  States,  this  government  does  not  think  it  should  properly  be  subjected  to  duty. 

It  will,  however,  be  proper  to  follow  such  rules  as  have  already  been  established  in  similar  cases,  for  instance, 
in  the  case  of  the  iron  and  other  material  used  in  the  construction  of  the  caisson  and  in  the  removal  of  the  obelisk 
lately  taken  by  Mr.  Dixon  to  London,  if  the  same  was  shipped  to  Alexandria  expressly  for  that  purpose. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  W.  M.  EVARTS. 


DEVELOPING  THE  PLANS. 

The  Paris  and  London  obelisks  were  transported  in  vessels  built  expressly  for  the  purpose.  The  “  Luxor  ” 
was  built  of  wood  in  Toulon,  and  sailed  to  Egypt  ;  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  was  built  of  iron  in  London,  and  shipped 
in  pieces  to  Alexandria.  Neither  of  these  vessels  had  adequate  motive  power.  As  the  voyages  they  had  to 
perform  were  coasting,  and  as  it  was  not  necessary  for  them  to  go  out  of  sight  of  land  or  get  beyond  easy 
reach  of  safe  harbors,  there  seemed  no  objection  to  their  making  the  voyages  in  tow.  Yet  these  voyages  were 
made  under  the  greatest  difficulties  ;  and  the  behavior  of  both  vessels  in  a  sea-way  was  very  bad.  The  cap¬ 
tain  of  the  “  Cleopatra”  reported  that  she  pitched  sixteen  times  a  minute.  This  is  inexplicable,  for  the  pro¬ 
gressive  motion  of  the  waves  and  the  speed  of  the  vessel  in  an  opposite  direction  would  have  to  be  exceptional 
to  produce  so  many  oscillations.  The  “  Luxor  ”  is  reported  to  have  rolled  so  violently  that  her  crew  had  diffi¬ 
culty  in  holding  on. 


THE  CRABS  AS  FOUND 


7 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

These  experiences  were  not  needed  to  convince  a  mariner  that  the  vessel  in  which  the  New  York  obelisk 
was  to  be  transported  must  be  large  enough  to  take  care  of  herself  under  all  conditions  of  weather,  and  must 
have  her  own  motive  power.  Such  a  vessel  could  not  have  been  built  around  the  obelisk  for  much  less  than 
the  whole  amount  that  was  to  be  paid  for  its  removal,  and  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  embark  it  on  an 
ordinary  vessel.  For^this  there  was  no  precedent.  The  one-hundred-ton  guns  made  in  England  and  shipped 
to  Italy  were  the'dargest  and  heaviest  masses  that  had  ever  been  placed  intact  into  a  ship’s  hold.  To  accom¬ 
plish  this  and  for  disembarking  them,  hydraulic  cranes  had  been  constructed  in  England  and  at  Spezzia 
at  a  cost  greatly  exceeding  the  sum  that  was  to  cover  the  whole  cost  of  removing  the  obelisk. 

Its  size  was  as  embarrassing  as  its  weight.  No  vessel  has  hatches  that  will  admit  a  mass  sixty-nine  feet 
in  length.  It  could  not  have  been  carried  on  deck  in  safety  without  strengthening  the  vessel  at  great  expense. 
In  the  hold,  below  the  water-line,  was  the  only  place  where  it  could  be  securely  stowed  and  saefly  transported, 
and  how  to  get  it  there  was  the  one  thing  on  which  the  whole  operation  of  removing  it  successfully  turned. 

The  plan  devised  and  successfully  executed  consisted  simply  in  embarking  and  disembarking  the  obelisk 
while  the  bow  of  the  vessel  was  out  of  water,  through  an  aperture  opened  expressly  for  the  purpose  and 
subsequently  closed  for  the  voyage.  The  details  of  execution  will  be  given  further  on. 

Besides  my  own,  three  other  plans  were  proposed  for  transporting  the  obelisk  by  sea.  The  first  one  was 
proposed  by  the  owner  of  a  bark  that  had  been  engaged  in  transporting  heavy  blocks  of  granite  on  deck  ;  the 
weight  of  one  block  never  exceeded  thirty  tons.  He  exhibited  a  photograph  of  the  obelisk  which  showed 
water  near  by  and  a  plan  of  the  deck  of  his  bark,  and  said  :  “  I  will  moor  my  vessel  here,  lower  the  stone 
down  on  her  deck,  and  then  sail.  When  we  reach  New  York  we  will  not  be  in  any  hurry  to  set  it  up,  for  we 
will  cart  it  about  the  country  and  make  a  good  thing  out  of  it  exhibiting  it  to  the  country  folks.”  The  objections 
to  this  plan  were  :  ist.  His  bark  could  not  get  within  a  mile  of  the  obelisk,  afloat,  as  the  shore  is  fringed  with 
sand-banks  and  reefs  that  extend  out  this  distance.  2d.  His  bark  could  not  have  remained  in  the  position  he 
pointed  out,  even  if  she  could  have  got  to  it,  as  the  bay  is  exposed  to  the  prevailing  northerly  wind  and  a 
heavy  surf  almost  continuously  breaks  on  the  shore.  3d.  His  bark  was  only  four  hundred  tons  capacity,  and 
the  obelisk  weighs  two  hundred  and  twenty  tons.  It  would  have  been  interesting  to  witness,  from  the  deck  of 
some  other  vessel,  the  performances  of  the  bark  at  sea  with  the  obelisk  on  her  spar-deck.  4th.  There  was  not 
room  enough  anywhere  on  the  deck  of  the  bark  for  the  obelisk. 

The  next  proposition  was  that  the  obelisk  should  somehow  be  got  on  the  bottom  of  the  bay  with  chains 
under  it ;  these  were  to  be  taken  on  board  of  a  steamer,  and  the  obelisk  lifted  by  them  until  it  was  suspended 
under  the  keel  ;  in  this  position  it  was  to  make  the  sea- voyage.  No  plan  was  submitted  for  getting  it  on  the 
bottom  of  the  bay  ;  and  no  arrangement  was  proposed  for  securing  the  services  of  mariners  for  the  voyage. 

Another  plan  was  to  encase  the  obelisk  in  wood  enough  to  float  it,  and  then  tow  the  mass  without  steer¬ 
ing  it.  Elaborate  drawings  and  interesting  computations  accompanied  this  proposition  ;  but  no  provision  was 
made  for  getting  the  mass  afloat,  nor  was  any  thing  said  about  the  management  of  the  towing  vessel  in  a  sea¬ 
way.  In  order  to  get  it  afloat,  launching  ways  half  a  mile  in  length  would  have  been  necessary,  and  their  con¬ 
struction  through  the  surf  impossible. 

For  lowering  the  obelisk  the  French  method  was  the  only  precedent.  The  English  operations  began  with 
the  obelisk  lying  on  the  sea-shore.  There  is  no  record  of  how  the  ancients  lowered  theirs  ;  and  it  is  probable 
that  obelisks  were  never  removed  from  an  erect  position,  and  that  only  those  that  had  fallen  were  removed 
from  where  the  ancient  Egyptians  placed  them.  The  French  method  is  fully  described  further  on.  It  has  the 
advantage  of  being  subjected  to  the  severest  test  at  a  moment  when  the  breaking  of  any  essential  part  of  the 
system  would  have  been  least  likely  to  result  disastrously  to  the  obelisk  ;  and  the  conspicuous  disadvantage  of 
multiplication  of  parts  essential  to  safety,  and  division  of  responsibility  at  the  critical  moments.  In  devising  a 
new  plan  for  lowering  the  obelisk  it  was  essential  that  the  turning  structure  should  be  made  available  for  lower¬ 
ing  and  erecting  ;  that  it  should  be  made  in  pieces  of  moderate  weight  and  dimensions  for  facility  of  transport 
and  handling ;  that  it  may  be  erected  and  taken  apart  without  destroying  it ;  that  it  should  be  adaptable  to 


I 


8  Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

dimensions  of  the  obelisk  varying  considerably  from  those  given  in  books,  which  did  not  agree ;  and  that  it  may 
have  some  value  for  other  uses  after  the  obelisk  had  been  erected. 

The  accompanying  drawings  (Plates  ii  and  iii)  present  a  front-  and  a  side-view-of  the  structure.  The 
first  shows  the  obelisk  clasped  at  its  centre  of  gravity  in  a  pair  of  trunnions  ;  these  rest  on  steel  towers  having 
masonry  foundations.  The  towers  are  formed  of  I  beams  held  in  position  by  screw-bolts  through  angle  plates, 
flat  plates,  angle  and  channel  bars.  The  horizontal  steel  beams  forming  the  bottom  of  the  structure  rest  on 
wooden  beams  which  lie  on  the  top  of  the  masonry  foundations.  The  wooden  beams  were  designed  for 
increasing  or  diminishing  the  height  of  the  towers  to  correspond  with  that  of  the  centre  of  gravity,  which  could 
not  be  determined  until  accurate  measurements  had  been  made  of  the  obelisk.  The  heaviest  pieces  of  the 
turning  structure  are  the  trunnions  ;  each  one  weighs  twelve  thousand  five  hundred  and 'seventy  pounds  ;  next 
to  these  are  the  pillow-blocks,  each  weighing  three  thousand  seven  hundred  pounds  ;  the  head-pieces  weigh 
seventeen  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  each ;  and  the  beams  vary  from  thirteen  hundred  and  sixty  to  eleven  hun¬ 
dred  and  ninety  pounds  each. 

The  device  for  lifting  the  obelisk  clear  of  the  pedestal  and  transferring  its  weight  to  the  turning  structure 
was  a  system  of  screws  and  turn-buckles.  Tie-rods  connected  the  lower  edges  of  the]  trunnion-plates  with 
beams  under  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk.  Each  tie-rod  was  in  two  sections,  and  on  each  end  of  each  section 
there  was  cut  a  screw.  The  two  sections  were  connected  by  a  turn-buckle,  and  the  upper  and  lower  ends  of 
the  rods  were  held  in  position  through  the  trunnion-plates  and  heel-beams  by  large  nuts.  As  there  were  four 
tie-rods  on  each  side  the  system  comprised  thirty-two  screws,  each  with  a  diameter  of  three  inches,  which 
were  capable  of  lifting  at  least  double  the  weight  of  the  obelisk  with  a  large  factor  of  safety. 

To  prevent  the  obelisk  from  slipping  through  the  trunnions  after  it  was  horizontal,  lips  were  cast  on  the 
inside  vertical  edges  of  the  trunnions,  to  carry  heavy  iron  plates  ;  these  were  held  in  position  by  three  steel 
bolts  on  each  side,  passing  from  one  trunnion  to  the  other,  which  also  served  as  additional  support. 
The  trunnions  were  further  held  in  position  by  three  iron  bolts  on  each  side,  making  twelve  in  all. 
These  bolts  were  not  tightened  until  the  obelisk  had  been  lifted  clear  of  its  supports  and  high  enough 
to  allow  the  heel  to  swing  clear  of  the  pedestal  when  turning,  as  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  lift  it,  that 
it  should  pass  freely  through  the  trunnions. 

Although  the  section  of  the  obelisk  through  the  centre  of  gravity  was  found  by  computation  to  be  strong 
enough  to  support  the  weight  of  the  ends,  with  additions  of  twenty-eight  tons  suspended  at  the  centre  of  gravity 
of  each  end,  it  was  determined  not  to  take  any  risk,  in  view  of  the  length  of  time  the  syenite  had  been 
exposed  to  atmospheric  influences  and  the  possibility  of  deterioration.  The  simple  device  of  trussing  the  ends 
of  the  shaft  with  steel  cables  was  adopted  as  being  most  effective.  Thirty  tons  of  the  weight  of  each  section 
was  in  this  manner  transferred  to  the  point  of  suspension.  The  truss  and  verticals  are  shown  on  Plate  iii. 

For  lowering  the  obelisk  to  the  ground  after  it  was  horizontal  two  plans  were  devised,  and  the  selection 
left  to  circumstances.  One  was  by  means  of  an  inclined  plane,  the  other  by  means  of  hydraulic  pumps  placed 
on  stacks  of  timber  built  up  under  the  ends.  The  inclined  plane  would  have  been  adopted  if  the  obelisk  had 
been  transported  overland  to  the  port  for  embarkation  ;  but  as  this  was  not  permitted,  the  plan  adopted  was 
that  shown  on  Plate  iii.  The  hydraulic  pumps  were  fitted  with  lowering  valves,  designed  by  Richard 
Dudgeon,  of  New  York,  which  permitted  a  descent  so  gradual  that  it  could  not  be  detected  without  measure¬ 
ment.  When  the  weight  of  the  obelisk  had  been  transferred  from  the  turning  structure  to  the  stacks  of  tim¬ 
ber,  by  lifting  it  with  the  hydraulic  pumps  clear  of  the  pillow-blocks  on  which  the  trunnions  rested,  the  turning 
structure  was  removed  and  the  descent  effected  by  removing  layers  of  timber  alternately  from  the  tops  of  the 
stacks  and  under  the  pumps.  The  obelisk  rested  on  the  two  top  piles  of  each  section  while  the  hydraulic 
pumps  were  being  lowered  by  removing  the  timber  from  under  them. 

There  remained  only  the  land  transport  of  the  obelisk  to  provide  for  to  complete  my  plans  for  its  removal 
from  Alexandria.  For  this  there  were  abundant  precedents  successfully  applied  in  ancient  and  modern  times. 
Of  these  the  most  ingenious  is  the  method  devised  by  Count  Carburi,  who  was  employed  under  the  name  of 


* 


“S 

N 

S 

> 

\ 


AATOTYPE 


MAIWOU*  ft  BIEP9TA0T.  N.  V 


THE  STAGING 


Kfovember  5,  1879 


Plate  VI 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


9 


Lascari,  to  move  the  pedestal  of  the  statue  of  Peter  the  Great  from  the  forest  of  Karelia  to  St.  Petersburg. 
The  mass  that  was  actually  moved  measured,  approximately,  twenty-one  feet  in  height  and  breadth  and  thirty- 
eight  in  length,  and  weighed  about  six  hundred  tons.  The  route  by  which  it  was  transported  was  over  a  hill 
and  across  a  marsh  to  the  river  bank  ;  thence  by  river  [to  the  city  quay,  and  thence  again  by  land  to  the  site. 
The  total  distance  is  forty-two  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-feet,  of  which  fifteen  thousand  is  over  land. 
The  essential  feature  of  Carburi’s  plan  was  the  substitution  of  cannon-balls  for  the  ordinary  wheels  or  rollers 
and  metal  grooves  for  the  ordinary  tracks.  A  roadway  was  made  across  the  marsh,  and  over  this  the  mass  of 
rock  was  moved,  by  tackles  and  capstans  worked  by  two  hundred  men,  a  distance  of  six  hundred  feet  per  day. 

Carburi’s  system  was  adopted.  And  in  order  to  insure  the  obelisk  against  possible  injury  during  its  over¬ 
land  transport,  and  especially  over  yielding  ground,  two  iron  trusses  were  designed  to  form  a  carriage  or  cradle 
into  which  it  was  to  have  been  lowered  and  to  have  remained  until  it  was  embarked. 

REMOVING  THE  OBELISK  FROM  ALEXANDRIA. 

On  August  4,  1879,  execution  of  the  foregoing  plans  was  begun.  A  contract  for  the  construction  of  the 
turning  structure  and  transporting  cradle  was  entered  into  with  the  firm  of  John  A.  Roebling’s  Sons,  of  Tren¬ 
ton.  Lieutenant  Seaton  Schroeder,  U.  S.  Navy,  having  previously  accepted  the  position  of  assistant,  was 
granted  leave  of  absence  by  the  Navy  Department.  A  foreman  for  iron-work,  Mr.  Frank  Price,  of  Glen  Cove, 
New  York,  and  one  for  wood-work  were  engaged;  and  on  August  24th  Lieutenant  Schroeder,  the  foreman 
carpenter,  and  I  sailed  for  England  on  the  “  Arizona,”  leaving  Mr.  Price  to  follow  on  the  steamer  that  took  the 
machinery. 

Every  possible  effort  to  charter  an  American  steamer  was  made  in  the  interval  between  August  4th  and 
26th,  but  not  one  available  for  the  work  could  be  secured. 

We  reached  Liverpool  on  September  4th,  and  spent  the  ensuing  two  weeks  in  fruitless  efforts  to  charter 
an  English  steamer.  The  rates  demanded  for  charter  were  equivalent  to  a  purchase,  and  generally  the  expla¬ 
nation  that  the  obelisk  was  to  be  embarked  on  the  vessel  in  the  manner  proposed  caused  a  sneer  or  a  smile. 
As  steamers  could  be  purchased  at  any  time,  it  was  finally  decided  to  make  no  further  effort  to  charter  one, 
but  to  wait  until  every  thing  was  ready  for  embarking  the  obelisk  before  purchasing  one. 

From  England  we  travelled  through  France  and  Italy  to  Trieste  with  the  intention  of  purchasing  timber 
at  Trieste.  There  we  found  that  there  would  be  no  advantage  in  purchasing  and  shipping  the  timber  to  Alex¬ 
andria,  where,  we  were  assured,  there  was  an  abundant  supply  on  hand  at  rates  less,  if  any  thing,  than  it  would 
cost  to  make  especial  shipment.  We  returned  to  Venice,  sailed  on  the  steamer"  Ceylon  ”  on  October 9th,  and 
arrived  at  Alexandria  October  16th.  The  foreman  carpenter  having  been  sent  by  steamer  direct  from  Liver¬ 
pool  had  arrived  about  two  weeks  earlier.  In  this  interval  the  Alexandrians  had  learned  that  the  obelisk  was 
really  to  be  removed,  and  for  the  first  time  in  many  centuries  it  became  an  object  of  interest. 

The  French  waited  about  twenty-five  years  and  the  English  nearly  seventy-five  before  removing  the 
obelisks  they  had  selected  for  removal.  There  was  a  feeling  in  Egypt  that  the  Americans  would  certainly 
require  a  century  to  perfect  their  arrangements  ;  and  although  it  was  well  known  that  the  obelisk  had  been 
given  to  the  United  States,  no  one,  not  even  the  Khedive,  believed  that  it  would  be  removed. 

Our  arrival  was  the  signal  for  the  beginning  of  an  agitation  by  the  foreign  residents  to  prevent  its  removal. 
Violently  abusive  articles  were  published  in  newspapers,  meetings  were  held,  and  petitions  to  the  Khedive 
were  circulated  for  signature  ;  threats  of  personal  violence  against  any  one  who  attempted  to  commence  the 
work  of  removal  were  made  openly  and  by  letter,  and  every  other  means  ol  frightening  us  resorted  to.  One  in¬ 
cident  of  this  nature  that  occurred  on  the  day  after  our  arrival  is  recalled,  in  order  to  contrast  it  with  another 
that  occurred  on  the  day  of  our  departure  seven  months  later.  On  both  occasions  I  was  passing  through  the 
street  frequented  by  the  younger  merchants  and  brokers  as  a  rendezvous,  on  my  way  to  the  telegraph  office  ; 
on  the  first,  I  was  greeted  with  a  storm  of  hisses  and  a  succession  of  choice  epithets ;  on  the  last,  scores  of  these 
very  men  crowded  around  me,  congratulating  me  on  my  final  success  and  wishing  me  a  pleasant  and  safe  voyage. 


IO 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

After  having  established  ourselves  at  Alexandria  in  apartments  near  to  the  site  of  the  obelisk  we  went  to 
Cairo,  and  at  an  hour  previously  appointed,  accompanied  by  Vice-Consul-General  Comanos,  we  had  an  audience 
of  the  Khedive.  He  received  us  very  cordially,  and  made  inquiries  about  the  plans  for  removing  and  transport¬ 
ing  the  obelisk,  cautiously  and  delicately  expressing  anxiety  that  it  should  not  be  taken  down  unless  we  were 
sure  of  removing  it.  This,  we  assured  him,  there  was  no  reason  to  doubt.  After  a  long  and  very  frank  discussion 
about  European  influences  on  Egyptian  affairs,  he  promised  that  orders  would  be  sent  to  the  Governor  of 
Alexandria  to  formally  deliver  up  the  obelisk.  Visits  were  made  to  all  the  Ministers,  who  received  us  very 
kindly,  and  offered,  in  the  usual  Eastern  manner,  to  do  all  sorts  of  things,  which  we  well  understood  as  with¬ 
out  meaning.  Riaz  Pacha,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  President  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  gave  direc¬ 
tions  that  the  order  to  the  Governor  of  Alexandria  should  be  made  out  without  delay.  The  following  is  a 
translation. 

To  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  Alexandria:  In  the  time  of  the  ex-Khedive  the  Egyptian  ‘govern¬ 
ment  gave  Cleopatra’s  Needle,  now  standing  on  the  sea-shore  of  Alexandria,  to  the  United  States  of  America,  to  be 
erected  in  the  city  of  New  York.  His  Excellency  Cherif  Pacha,  who  was  then  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  communi¬ 
cated  the  fact  to  the  United  States  Consul-General  in  a  dispatch  dated  May  1 8,  1879.  An  American  officer  having 
been  sent  here  to  receive  and  remove  the  said  Cleopatra’s  Needle,  and  His  Highness  the  Khedive  having  confirmed 
the  gift  by  a  decree,  I  hasten  to  instruct  you  to  deliver  that  monument  immediately  to  the  said  officer,  and  to  offer  him 
the  same  assistance  for  removing  it  from  its  site  and  embarking  it  as  was  offered  at  the  time  of  removing  the  other 
obelisk  that  was  given  to  the  English  government.  All  expenses  will  be  paid  by  the  officer  of  the  United  States. 

(Signed)  MOUSTAPHA  RIAZ,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


We  returned  to  Alexandria  by  the  first  train  after  the  receipt  of  this  order,  and  on  arrival  there  we  lost 
no  time  in  presenting  it  to  the  Governor,  and  as  soon  as  he  had  read  it  we  urged  him  to  execute  it  at  once  by 
a  formal  transfer  of  the  obelisk.  This  was  all  accomplished  within  three  days  after  our  arrival.  Considering 
with  whom  we  were  dealing  there  was  reason  for  great  satisfaction  at  the  promptness  with  which  possession  of 
the  obelisk  had  been  secured.  As  long  as  it  remained  in  the  control  of  the  Egyptian  government  there  were 
reasons  for  anticipating  pressure  from  the  European  consuls  and  resident  foreigners  to  prevent  its  transfer  ; 
but  the  transfer  was  effected  so  quickly  and  so  quietly  that  these  gentlemen  had  no  time  to  act  in  concert  and 
with  effect  before  it  was  too  late.  To  their  protests  and  petitions  subsequently  presented,  the  Khedive  and 
his  Ministers  answered  :  “Too  late  ;  Cleopatra’s  Needle  is  the  possession  of  the  United  States  officer  sent  to 
receive  it.”  The  efforts  of  foreign  residents  were  then  directed  to  preventing  its  removal. 

Although  the  Governor  had  formally  transferred  the  obelisk,  he  had  stipulated  that  work  should  not  be 
commenced  for  a  day  or  two,  and  kindly  suggested  that  the  interval  could  be  profitably  spent  in  making  our 
preparations.  After  a  lapse  of  four  days  another  visit  was  paid  to  him,  and  he  authorized  us  to  commence 
operations,  and  excused  the  delay  on  the  ground  of  a  legal  complication  about  the  land  around  the  obelisk 
that  he  had  been  obliged  to  enquire  into. 

At  noon  on  October  27th,  a  force  of  laborers  having  begun  clearing  away  the  ground,  an  incident  oc¬ 
curred  that  is  related  in  the  following  letter. 


Alexandria,  Oct.  28,  1879. 

H.  E.  The  Governor  of  Alexandria. 

Sir:  I  regret  extremely  that  it  has  become  once  more  necessary  for  me  to  have  recourse  to  your  good-will  and 
your  duty  to  assist  me  in  prosecuting  the  work  with  which  I  am  entrusted  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
Yesterday,  having  received  authority  from  you,  I  set  some  men  to  work  to  remove  the  paving  stones  that  surround  the 
obelisk,  the  owner  of  the  stones  making  no  objection  whatever.  Another  individual  arrived,  however,  and  ordered  the 
work  stopped.  Arriving  myself  a  few  moments  afterward,  I  learned  that  the  man  claimed  possession  of  the  ground 
and  would  allow  no  one  to  work  there.  He  also  added  that  if  we  persisted  he  would  apply  to  the  Italian  Consul, 
whose  janissaries  would  be  sent  to  eject  us  from  the  premises.  Not  recognizing  his  right  to  interfere,  but  not  wishing 
to  bring  about  such  a  disturbance,  I  went  to  see  the  Italian  Vice-Consul,  accompanied  by  the  Consul  of  the  United 


ARTOTYP* 


THE  OBELISK  ENCASED  AND  STAYED. 

The  Hoisting  Shears  with  Trunnions  suspended  to  them 


Plate  VII 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk.  1 1 

States,  to  ask  an  explanation.  He  informed  me  that  any  Italian  subject  occupying  a  property  belonging  to  him  had  a 
right  to  his  protection,  and  that  he  would  protect  him,  even  by  force  of  arms.  I  thought  it  strange  that  he  should 
dare  to  prevent  by  main  force  what  your  Excellency  had  authorized  me  to  do  ;  but  before  notifying  my  government 
that  the  Italian  Vice-Consul  had  defied  the  orders  of  the  Egyptian  government,  and  that  I  am  thus  stopped  in  the  ex¬ 
ecution  of  a  work  with  which  I  am  charged,  I  thought  it  best  to  try  to  arrange  it  amicably,  so  as  not  to  trouble  your 
Excellency.  During  the  dispute  on  the  ground  I  had  offered  to  the  soi-disant  proprietor  to  pay  him  a  rent,  just  as 
though  it  really  belonged  to  him  ;  but  he  refused  point-blank  to  rent  the  ground  to  me,  and  informed  me  through  his 
lawyer  that  he  would  not  permit  the  operations  for  removing  the  obelisk.  Nevertheless,  I  begged  the  Italian  Vice- 
Consul  to  try  his  best  to  settle  the  matter,  and  he  promised  to  give  me  an  answer  by  four  o’clock  this  afternoon.  If 
he  does  not  succeed  I  shall  be  obliged  to  request  your  Excellency  to  protect  me  against  the  Italian  janissaries. 
Failing  that,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  telegraph  to  my  government  that  I  have  been  forcibly  ejected,  and  that  Egyptian 
authority  has  failed  to  protect  me. 

I  beg  your  Excellency  to  so  direct  affairs  as  to  enable  me  to  begin  operations  at  once,  because  it  is  needless  to 
say  that  if  the  matter  should  take  an  official  form  between  the  two  governments  the  situation  would  only  become 
more  grave. 

I  am,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  HENRY  H.  GORRINGE,  Lieutenant-Commander  U.  S.  Navy. 


In  a  subsequent  interview  with  the  Governor,  he  explained  that  the  legal  complication  he  had  been  in¬ 
vestigating,  that  caused  the  delay  in  authorizing  us  to  begin  work,  was  the  claim  that  the  land  around  the 
obelisk  was  the  property  of  some  Italians  ;  and  in  further  explanation  he  related  the  circumstances  substan¬ 
tially  as  follows  : 

An  Italian  having  been  granted  authority  by  Mohammed  Ali  Pacha,  then  ruler  of  Egypt,  to  build  a  bathing 
establishment  on  the  sea-shore  near  the  obelisk,  was  unfortunate  enough  to  have  his  property  destroyed  by 
the  sea  during  a  gale.  He  subsequently  made  a  claim  against  the  Egyptian  government  for  compensation  for 
the  damage  done  by  the  sea ;  and  in  order  to  secure  himself  against  a  possible  adverse  decision  on  his  claim,  he 
took  possession  of  the  land  surrounding  the  obelisk  and  erected  a  shanty  on  it.  This  claim  was  still  pending 
when  the  international  courts  were  organized  for  the  trial  of  causes  between  foreigners  and  the  Egyptian  gov¬ 
ernment  and  between  individuals  of  different  nationalities.  It  was  regarded  as  so  absurd  that  difficulty  was 
experienced  in  getting  it  placed  on  the  docket,  but  the  Italian  Consul  persisted,  and  it  was  finally  so  placed  in 
the  belief  that  it  never  would  be  pressed  for  trial  by  the  government,  and  certainly  not  by  the  claimants. 

Four  fifths  of  the  claims  of  foreigners  against  the  Egyptain  government  have  no  firmer  basis  than  the  one 
here  cited,  and  at  least  four  fifths  of  the  foreign  residents  of  Egypt  have  claims  that  are  handed  down  in  wills 
to  heirs,  just  as  this  one  was,  the  original  claimant  having  died  several  years  ago.  Their  attorney  had  kept 
himself  well  informed  of  the  proceedings  in  connection  with  the  removal  of  the  obelisk,  and  had  in  concert 
with  others  deliberately  planned  the  prohibition  of  the  work  in  order  to  prevent  its  removal. 

The  Governor  expressed  surprise  at  the  presumption  of  the  Italian  Consul,  and  requested  time  to  com¬ 
municate  with  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  at  Cairo.  I  notified  U.  S.  Vice-Consul-General  Comanos 
by  telegraph  of  the  circumstance,  and  urged  him  to  confer  with  the  Italian  Consul-General  about  it ;  and 
pending  answers  from  the  Governor  and  Mr.  Comanos,  I  notified  the  Italian  Consul  that  a  suit  for  dam¬ 
ages  for  ;£ 1 5,ooo  would  be  instituted  against  whoever  attempted  to  interfere  with  the  work  of  removing 
the  obelisk,  and  that  I  limited  the  time  for  amicable  settlement,  by  acceptance  of  my  proposition  to  lease 
the  ground,  to  four  o’clock  p.  m.  of  that  day. 

In  reply  to  this  the  Italian  Consul  informed  our  consular  agent  that  the  claimant  had  accepted  my  offer 
to  lease  the  ground,  and  proposed  to  appoint  arbitrators  to  fix  on  a  suitable  sum.  This  was  agreed  to,  arbi¬ 
trators  were  selected,  and  the  lease  effected  before  night.  Although  there  could  have  been  no  question  as  to 
the  result  of  a  determination  to  proceed  without  leasing  the  land,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  get  absolute  con¬ 
trol  of  the  ground  that  must  necessarily  be  covered  with  the  works,  so  as  to  have  a  right  to  exclude  from  it 
undesirable  persons. 


12 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

On  the  morning  of  October  29th  work  was  begun  by  one  hundred  Arabs,  varying  from  ten  to  seventy 
years  of  age,  divided  into  three  gangs.  The  middle-aged  dug  and  filled  baskets,  the  old  lifted  them  to  the 
backs  of  the  young,  who  carried  them  to  the  shore  and  emptied  them  into  the  surf.  By  November  6th  an  ex¬ 
cavation  of  seventeen  hundred  and  thirty  cubic  yards  had  been  completed.  It  had  laid  bare  the  pedestal  and 
steps,  and  made  a  space  large  enough  to  construct  a  caisson  in  which  to  transport  the  obelisk  to  the  port  for 
embarkation.  Several  interesting  fragments  of  statuary,  a  number  of  coins,  and  a  few  scarabee  and  other  an¬ 
tique  objects  were  found  by  the  workmen,  to  whom  liberal  rewards  were  paid  for  each  article  delivered.  Men 
accustomed  to  the  work  were  employed  to  search  the  beach  for  other  small  objects  that  having  escaped  detection 
would  probably  be  washed  up  by  the  surf.  In  this  way  many  interesting  bronze  fragments  were  recovered. 

The  base  of  the  obelisk  and  the  position  of  one  of  the  metal  supports  are  shown  on  Plate  iv,  on  the  right. 
This  is  copied  from  a  photograph  taken  at  the  time  the  London  obelisk  was  being  removed.  One  corner 
of  the  obelisk  is  shown,  supported  by  a  piece  of  stone  that  had  been  substituted  for  one  of  the  metal  supports. 
The  corner  diagonally  opposite  to  it  was  supported  in  exactly  the  same  manner,  two  of  the  metal  supports 
having  been  removed.  The  two  remaining  ones  were  badly  mutilated.  Their  condition  is  shown  on  Plate  v, 
which  is  a  photograph  of  one  metal  support  in  two  positions  and  the  other  in  one  position.  They  had 
been  cast  in  the  form  of  sea-crabs,  but  when  we  uncovered  them  all  the  legs  but  one,  and  all  the  claws  but  a 
part  of  one,  had  been  broken  off  and  removed,  doubtless  for  the  value  of  the  metal. 

Plate  iv  also  shows  the  excavation  and  the  condition  of  the  base  and  steps  when  they  were  uncovered. 
The  masonry  on  top  of  the  pedestal  around  the  base  of  the  obelisk,  shown  in  the  picture  on  the  left,  was 
put  there  about  the  time  the  London  obelisk  was  removed  ;  owing  to  inferior  mortar  and  other  causes  it  was 
loose  and  gave  no  support  to  the  shaft.  Another  feature  in  the  picture  to  the  left  is  the  reft  in  the  base  of  the 
obelisk,  that  has  been  misrepresented  as  a  crack  in  the  shaft,  received  during  its  transportation.  It  is  in  reality  a 
vein  of  hornblende,  the  outer  part  of  which  has  been  decomposed,  leaving  an  irregular  shallow  notch  nowhere 
exceeding  an  inch  in  depth.  But  for  this  photograph,  made  before  the  obelisk  had  been  lowered,  there  might 
have  been  some  question  as  to  the  origin  of  this  defect,  which  is  now  very  noticeable  from  the  drive  in  the 
Central  Park,  the  dirt  having  been  washed  out  of  it. 

The  bottom  of  the  lower  step  was  found  to  be  nearly  at  mean  sea  level  ;  as  the  foundation  could  not  have 
sunk  so  nearly  uniformly,  it  is  certain  that  there  has  been  a  subsidence  of  the  ground  since  the  obelisk  was 
erected  ;  and  if  the  level  of  the  lower  step  was  at  the  same  height  as  the  surface  is  at  present,  this  subsidence 
is  about  seventeen  feet  in  nineteen  hundred  years.  Down  to  the  level  of  the  water  there  was  nothing  but 
loose  earth  and  sand,  mixed  with  all  sorts  of  fragments  of  columns  and  statuary  and  pottery.  In  several  places 
remains  of  old  walls  were  met  with.  Surrounding  the  steps  were  fragments  of  a  mosaic  pavement,  composed 
of  alternate  squares  of  white  and  dark  marble.  The  sea  end  of  the  pit  was  left  open  down  to  the  remains  of  an 
ancient  massive  wall  that  ran  nearly  parallel  with  the  shore  and  close  to  the  water.  This  wall  served  as  a 
breakwater  for  the  pit  when  the  surf  was  high. 

While  the  excavations  were  in  progress  another  attempt  was  made  to  prevent  the  removal  of  the  obe¬ 
lisk,  through  a  creditor  of  the  Egyptian  government  who  applied  to  the  International  Court  to  sieze  it  and 
keep  possession  until  his  claim  had  been  paid.  Before  serving  the  writ  enquiries  were  made  as  to  the  probable 
result  of  doing  so.  On  being  assured  that  no  notice  would  be  taken  of  the  writ,  and  that  all  the  resistance  pos¬ 
sible  would  be  offered  to  any  use  of  force  to  take  possession  of  the  obelisk,  the  Court  withheld  the  writ.  The 
object  of  this  proceeding  was  to  arrest  the  work,  get  the  obelisk  into  court,  and  keep  the  case  pending  until  the 
attempt  to  remove  it  had  been  abandoned.  It  is  inexplicable  that  the  proposition  should  ever  have  been 
entertained  ;  and  yet  it  was  not  only  entertained,  but  the  process  was  actually  begun,  and  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  pushed  but  for  prompt  action  that  gave  assurance  of  a  determination  to  resist.  The  United 
States  flag  was  conspicuously  displayed  on  the  obelisk  to  indicate  ownership  ;  and  the  means  of  defending 
it  was  provided  and  arranged  in  a  manner  that  carried  conviction  to  any  one  that  had  been  in  doubt  about 
our  sincerity  and  our  determination  to  defend  it  and  remove  it. 


TURNING  THE  OBELISK. 


December  6,  1879 


late 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


I3 


Soon  after  this  affair  had  quieted  down  some  of  the  consuls-general  in  Cairo,  at  the  instigation  of  some 
resident  European  archaeologists,  made  an  attempt  to  have  the  work  of  removal  suspended  until  the  matter 
could  be  referred  to  their  governments.  It  appears  that  by  the  terms  of  a  convention  entered  into  with 
several  of  the  European  powers,  the  Egyptian  government  agreed  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  any  object  of 
antiquity.  No  attention  had  been  paid  to  this  convention  when  the  English  removed  the  fallen  obelisk;  and  its 
provisions  were  commonly  violated  by  the  consuls  and  archaeologists  themselves  in  the  shipment  of  articles  to 
Europe.  Besides  this,  the  firman  that  gave  the  Egyptian  government  existence  stipulated  that  it  should  not 
make  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  convention  in  question  was  unauthorized.  Fearing 
that  the  pressure  on  the  Khedive  and  his  Ministers  might  become  more  than  they  could  resist,  negotiations 
were  commenced  through  a  prominent,  and  at  that  time  powerful,  Pacha  in  Constantinople,  whom  it  had  been 
my  good  fortune  to  befriend,  to  insure  the  prompt  confirmation  of  the  gift  by  the  Porte,  in  case  of  necessity. 

To  put  an  end  to  these  annoyances  I  determined  to  push  the  work  of  removal  forward  as  rapidly  as 
possible  by  working  night  and  day,  so  as  to  get  the  obelisk  off  its  pedestal.  Every  effort  was  devoted  to 
this  end,  and  it  was  accomplished  within  a  month  from  the  day  the  turning  structure  arrived. 

PREPARATIONS  FOR  TURNING  THE  OBELISK. 

While  the  pit  was  being  dug  a  staging  was  erected  around  the  obelisk  for  sheathing  it  with  planks,  in 
order  to  protect  the  hieroglyphs  from  injury.  (Plate  vi.)  The  sheathing  was  held  together  by  iron  bands, 
similar  to  the  hoops  of  a  barrel.  The  top  band  was  heavier  than  the  others,  and  had  a  loop  at  each  angle,  into 
which  were  shackled  four  steel  wire  cables.  These  were  secured  to  anchors  at  suitable  distances  from  the  base 
of  the  obelisk,  and  tightened  so  as  to  support  it  until  it  was  secured  in  the  turning  structure.  The  masonry 
and  concrete  piers  on  which  this  was  to  stand  were  commenced  as  soon  as  the  pit  was  dug,  and  in  order  to 
have  them  dry  quickly  hydraulic  cement  was  used.  These  piers  are  shown  on  Plates  ii  and  iii.  As  soon  as 
the  staging  had  been  removed  four  long  spars  were  placed  in  position,  opposite  the  angles  of  the  obelisk,  to 
form  derricks  for  hoisting  the  pieces  of  the  turning  structure  into  position.  Plate  vii  illustrates  the  plan  adopted 
for  supporting  the  obelisk,  the  sheathing  banded  around  it,  and  the  hoisting  shears  with  the  trunnions  sus¬ 
pended  to  them.  For  convenience  in  placing  the  trunnions  on  the  pillow-blocks,  they  were  hoisted  first  and 
left  hanging  until  the  turning  structure  had  been  erected. 

The  machinery  and  material  for  removing  the  obelisk  were  shipped  from  New  York  on  the  steamer 
“Nevada,”  of  the  Guion  Line,  which  sailed  on  October  7th,  and  arrived  in  Liverpool  on  October  19th.  There 
they  were  transhipped  on  the  steamer  “Mariotis,”  which  sailed  on  October  27th,  and  arrived  at  Alexandria 
November  11,  1879.  Preparations  had  been  made  for  their  prompt  disembarkation  and  transport  from  the 
port,  through  the  town,  to  the  side  of  the  obelisk ;  and  this  was  completed  in  four  days.  The  trunnions  were 
the  only  pieces  that  gave  trouble,  owing  to  there  not  being  a  truck  in  the  city  suitable  for  their  transport. 
They  were,  however,  placed  on  the  best  truck  obtainable,  which  was  hauled  by  Arabs,  who  wisely  selected 
the  Christian  Sabbath  for  the  day  to  move  them,  owing  to  the  diminution  of  traffic  on  that  day. 

The  Arabs  were  very  noisy  and  attracted  a  large  and  increasing  crowd,  who  followed  the  procession 
through  the  town.  For  this  an  American  missionary  roundly  abused  us  from  a  borrowed  pulpit,  and  took 
advantage  of  the  occasion  to  denounce  the  removal  of  the  obelisk  as  a  work  of  the  Devil.  This  act  of  “Chris- 
tian  charity”  was  of  no  consequence,  beyond  the  amusement  it  afforded  the  editors  and  readers  of  local 
newspapers,  who  seized  on  it  with  much  eagerness  as  evidence  of  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  Americans. 
In  explanation  of  the  missionary’s  condition  of  mind  on  the  subject  it  may  be  well  to  state  on  his  own 
authority  that  he  wanted  the  money  that  was  being  spent  on  the  removal  given  to  his  mission.  In  connection 
with  this  question  of  Sunday-work,  which  was  commented  on  in  a  rational  manner  by  many  friends,  it  is  well 
to  recall  the  fact  that  the  Mohammedan  and  Christian  Sabbaths  are  on  different  days.  It  was  impossible  to 
observe  both  ;  and  a  respect  for  the  opinions  of  both  sects  led  to  the.  rule  that  work  would  be  carried  on 
without  intermission,  and  that  the  workmen  were  at  liberty  to  select  their  own  Sunday  and  observe  it  in 


1 4  Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

• 

their  own  fashion.  Arab  Mohammedans  and  Maltese  and  European  Christians  formed  the  majority  of  the 
men  employed.  The  former  spent  Friday,  their  Sabbath,  in  a  rational  manner,  sleeping  during  the  early  part 
of  the  day,  attending  services  at  the  mosque  at  noon,  and  devoting  the  afternoon  to  social  intercourse  and 
amusement.  The  Christians,  almost  to  a  man,  would  devote  the  thirty-six  hours  from  Saturday  evening  to 
Monday  morning  in  drinking,  gambling,  fighting,  and  other  excesses,  and  return  to  work  drunk,  sleepy,  and 
bruised. 

By  December  2d  the  turning  structure  had  been  placed  in  position,  and  so  admirably  were  the  several 
parts  fitted  that  it  was  not  even  necessary  to  ream  out  a  bolt  hole.1  The  process  of  lifting  the  obelisk  clear  of 
the  pedestal  and  disengaging  the  metal  supports  or  crabs  occupied  us  until  the  evening  of  December  5th. 
With  the  bolts  that  clamped  the  trunnions  together  loosened  so  as  to  allow  the  obelisk  to  pass  freely  up 
through  them,  levers  inserted  in  the  turn-buckles  of  the  tie-rods  were  turned  simultaneously  with  the  nuts  on 
the  upper  and  lower  ends  of  the  tie-rods.  Some  anxiety  was  caused  by  the  buckling  of  the  heel-beams,  due 
to  imperfect  bearing  against  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk.  After  this  had  been  provided  against  by  wedges 
driven  in  the  vacant  spaces,  the  lifting  was  successfully  and  easily  accomplished.  The  operation  of  lifting, 
here  briefly  described,  will  be  made  clear  by  referring  to  Plate  ii,  where  the  turn-buckles  in  the  tie-rods  C  are 
shown  inside  of  the  steel  towers,  about  midway  between  the  trunnions  B,  and  the  heel-beams  D.  And  on 
Plate  iii  the  ends  of  the  tie-rods  are  seen  through  the  brackets  on  the  trunnions  and  also  through  the  ends  of 
the  heel-beams. 

Before  turning  the  obelisk  horizontal  the  steel  wire-rope  truss  A,  shown  on  Plates  iii,  vii,  and  viii,  was 
placed  in  position  and  tightened  by  means  of  screws  and  nuts  to  an  estimated  strain  of  sixty  tons  ;  thereby 
relieving  the  section  of  the  obelisk  through  the  point  of  suspension  of  this  amount  of  the  weight  of  the  ends, 
and  insuring  it  against  fracture  when  it  was  horizontal.  Plates  vii  and  viii  also  show  a  stack  of  timber  piled  to 
receive  the  upper  section  of  the  obelisk  should  the  tackles  that  were  provided  to  keep  control  of  the  turning 
unexpectedly  give  way.  These  tackles  were  led  from  a  strap  round  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk  to  posts  led 
into  the  masonry  towers.  They  were,  theoretically,  capable  of  raising  fifteen  tons.  New  rope  and  blocks  of 
the  best  quality  obtainable  in  Alexandria  were  purchased  expressly  for  the  purpose.  The  rope  previously 
purchased  had  been  so  treacherous,  and  had  parted  so  many  times  with  inadequate  strain,  that  it  was  deemed 
prudent  to  provide  a  safeguard  against  the  obelisk  revolving  past  the  horizontal.  The  upper  section  was 
known  to  have  a  preponderance  of  three  and  a  half  tons  of  weight,  given  it  to  facilitate  the  operation  of 
turning. 

TURNING  THE  OBELISK. 

On  the  morning  of  December  4th  an  attempt  was  made  to  pull  the  upper  end  of  the  obelisk  over  by 
means  of  tackles.  This  attempt  failed,  owing  to  the  further  bending  of  the  heel-beams,  which  caused  the 
bottom  of  the  obelisk  to  bind  against  the  top  of  one  of  the  crabs.  The  impression  prevailed  that  the  turning 
structure  had  settled  and  was  therefore  of  inadequate  strength  to  sustain  the  weight.  Several  engineers  and 
others  strongly  advised  abandoning  the  attempt  to  place  the  obelisk  horizontal  in  the  manner  proposed  ;  and 
letters  were  received  protesting  against  the  destruction  of  so  valuable  a  monument  by  any  further  attempt  to 
remove  it.  These  expressions  did  not  affect  in  any  way  the  confidence  I  felt  in  a  speedy  termination  of  this, 
the  first  stage  of  the  work,  although  they  caused  me  great  chagrin,  and  aroused  every  one  associated  with  me 
in  the  work  to  an  extra  exertion  in  order  to  prove  them  senseless. 

Removing  the  crabs  was  rendered  very  difficult  by  the  lead  which  had  been  poured  into  the  mortices 
in  the  pedestal  while  molten.  The  angles  of  the  dowels  of  the  crabs  had  notches  in  them  (see  Plate  vi),  and 
the  bottom  of  the  mortice  was  larger  than  the  top.  These  were  devices  of  the  Roman  engineer  to  prevent 
the  removal  of  the  crabs,  and  they  were  very  effective.  The  process  of  lifting  the  obelisk,  already  described, 

1  The  contract  for  this  work  was  sublet  by  John  A.  Roebling’s  Sons  to  the  Phoenix  Iron  Works  of  Trenton,  to  which  all  credit 
is  due  for  its  admirable  execution. 


ARTOTYP* 


HARROUN  &  BIERSTADT.  N.  Y. 


THE  OBELISK  HORIZONTAL 


December  6,  1879. 


Plate  IX 


* 


4 


■ 


* 


•* 


<  ..  V. 


* 


%  ^ 
*  * 


. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


15 


was  again  resorted  to,  and  having  raised  it  clear  of  the  crab  the  bottom  was  pushed  over  to  seaward  until  the 
obelisk  was  in  the  position  shown  on  Plate  viii.  In  this  position  it  remained  seventeen  hours  without  affect¬ 
ing  any  part  of  the  structure  in  which  it  was  suspended. 

Rumors  of  a  possible  demonstration  by  the  foreign  residents  when  the  obelisk  was  to  be  placed  horizon¬ 
tal  had  been  circulated  until  they  reached  Rear-Admiral  Aslambekoff,  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Navy,  who  was 
in  the  port  of  Alexandria  in  his  flag-ship  the  “  Minim.”  He  was  aware  of  the  feeling  that  existed  among  the 
foreigners,  and  while  unable  to  land  an  armed  force  for  our  protection,  he  landed  a  large  force  of  unarmed 
trained  seamen  for  the  purpose  of  enclosing  the  grounds  in  a  cordon  of  effective  men  and  affording  any 
assistance  that  was  needed  at  a  critical  moment. 

His  Excellency,  Zulficar  Pacha,  Governor  of  Alexandria,  the  Egyptian  officials,  and  a  few  acquaintances 
were  notified  that  the  turning  would  take  place  at  9  a.  m.  of  the  6th.  But  his  Excellency  did  not  arrive  until 
11  a.  m.  As  soon  as  he  had  reached  the  platform  provided  for  invited  persons,  the  word  was  given  to 
slack  the  tackles.  A  large  crowd  of  Greeks,  Italians,  and  other  Europeans  had  gathered  in  the  vicinity,  and 
occupied  every  available  spot  from  which  the  movement  could  be  seen.  While  we  were  waiting  for  the  Gov¬ 
ernor,  the  crowd  was  noisy  and  at  times  unruly  when  they  were  prevented  from  going  within  the  inclosure. 
But  at  the  instant  the  obelisk  began  to  move  there  was  absolute  silence  and  stillness.  As  it  slowly  turned 
not  a  sound  but  the  rendering  of  the  ropes  around  the  posts  and  an  occasional  creak  of  the  structure  could 
be  heard.  Immediately  following  a  creak  louder  than  any  previous  one,  the  motion  was  suddenly  arrested, 
then  there  was  a  sharp  snap — one  of  the  tackles  had  parted.  Instantly  the  order  was  given  to  slack  the 
other  tackle  rapidly,  using  it  merely  to  retard  the  motion  and  not  to  arrest  it ;  but  the  man  attending  the 
fall  had  lost  his  wits,  and  instead  of  slackening,  he  held  it  fast  and  it  very  soon  broke.  The  obelisk  was  at 
that  moment  about  half  over ;  it  moved  slowly  at  first,  and  then  more  and  more  rapidly,  until  it  struck 
the  stack  of  timbers,  rebounded  twice,  and  came  to  rest  in  the  position  shown  on  Plate  viii.  There  was 
intense  excitement ;  many  of  the  Arabs  and  Greeks  about  the  grounds  had  fled  precipitously  when  the 
obelisk  began  to  move  rapidly  ;  and  when  it  rested  on  the  stack  of  timber  uninjured  there  arose  a  pro¬ 
longed  cheer,  which  was  the  first  friendly  manifestation  shown  by  the  Alexandrians. 

The  explanation  given  for  the  breaking  of  the  first  tackle  by  the  man  attending  it  was,  that  he  looked  up 
to  see  what  the  noise  was,  and  in  doing  so  involuntarily  checked  the  passage  of  the  rope  through  his  hands  ; 
this  brought  the  whole  strain  on  his  tackle  and  caused  it  to  break.  The  other  man  was  properly  giving  his 
whole  attention  to  the  command,  and  was  unconscious  of  the  accident  until  he  saw  that  his  companion  had 
fled  precipitately  from  under  the  obelisk,  leaving  him  alone.  Surely  his  loss  of  self-control  was  excusable. 
It  was  to  provide  against  such  contingencies  that  the  timber  stack  was  built.  The  two  upper  tiers  of  plank 
were  crushed  ;  aside  from  this  no  loss  or  injury  to  any  person  or  any  thing  resulted  from  the  successful 
accomplishment  of  the  first  essential  feature  of  the  work  of  removal. 

Simultaneously  with  the  preparations  for  turning,  other  equally  important  parts  of  the  work  were  being 
pushed  forward  ;  notably  the  construction  of  a  wooden  box  or  caisson  in  which  the  obelisk  was  to  be  carried  by 
sea  to  the  port,  and  the  clearing  away  of  ruins  from,  and  grading  of  the  sea-bed  along,  the  route  over  which 
it  had  to  be  launched.  By  way  of  explanation  it  is  necessary  to  recall  the  fact  that  an  iron  truss-cradle, 
moving  on  cannon-balls  instead  of  wheels,  in  channel  irons  instead  of  on  an  ordinary  rail,  had  been  designed, 
made  in  the  United  States,  and  brought  to  Egypt  for  transporting  the  obelisk  overland  to  the  port  for  em¬ 
barkation.  The  distance  overland  was  less  than  a  mile  ;  and  the  route  was  over  comparatively  unfrequented 
streets,  except  for  a  short  distance  across  what  was  once  the  ancient  causeway  connecting  Eunostos  Island 
with  the  mainland,  and  what  is  now  an  accumulation  of  sand  and  debris,  occupied  by  the  most  important 
part  of  the  city.  An  examination  of  Plate  x  will  make  this  clear. 

Soon  after  our  arrival  at  Alexandria  an  unofficial  application  was  made  to  the  Governor  for  permission  to 
move  the  obelisk  along  the  proposed  route.  A  conference  ensued  during  which  the  Governor  stated,  in 
effect,  that  in  consideration  for  keeping  the  streets  paved  and  clean  the  government  had  transferred  all  con- 


1 6  Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

trol  of  them  to  the  foreign  merchants.  He  agreed  to  ascertain  the  probable  result  of  an  application  made  to 
these  merchants  and  to  inform  us.  Several  days  afterward  he  advised  us  not  to  make  the  application  until 
every  other  method  of  getting  the  obelisk  to  the  port  had  been  tried  and  had  failed.  It  appears  that  the  for¬ 
eign  merchants  had  determined  not  to  allow  the  obelisk  to  be  moved  through  the  city,  giving  as  a  reason  the 
probability  of  its  crushing  in  the  sewers.  Guarantees  of  repairing  all  damage  done  were  of  no  avail ;  the 
transporting  cradle,  costing  $5,ioo,  had  to  be  thrown  away,  and  the  expensive  and  very  dangerous  method 
of  sea  transport  in  a  wooden  caisson  a  distance  of  ten  miles  was  the  only  resource.  The  expense  was  least 
of  all  in  the  construction  of  the  caisson,  which  cost  only  $ 2,200  ;  it  was  chiefly  in  the  preparations  for  launch¬ 
ing  it  over  a  shallow  bank  cumbered  with  heavy  blocks  of  syenite  and  granite  ;  the  massive  submerged 
foundations  of  one  of  the  famous  palaces  of  Alexandria  were  directly  in  the  way.  These  obstructions 
could  only  be  removed  by  means  of  divers,  a  serious  undertaking  in  smooth  water,  and  a  most  discouraging 
and  almost  hopeless  task  to  accomplish  on  an  open  coast  on  which  the  surf  was  breaking  two  thirds  of  the 
time.  Diving  operations  were  commenced  on  November  5,  1879,  and  continued,  whenever  the  sea  would 
permit,  until  March  18,  1880.  A  pier  with  derricks  for  lifting  out  the  blocks  had  to  be  constructed.  The 
estimated  weight  of  material  removed  is  one  hundred  and  seventy  tons.  The  pieces  ranged  from  three 
to  seven  tons  in  weight.  In  Alexandria  competent  divers  are  scarce,  and  in  order  to  retain  those  we 
employed  they  had  to  be  paid  whether  at  work  or  not.  The  cost  of  this  submarine  work  was  nearly 
$4,000.  It  will  be  shown  hereafter  that  the  cost  of  the  caisson  and  submarine  work  necesssary  for 
launching  it  were  inconsiderable  and  unimportant  when  compared  with  the  cost  of  launching  and  the 
imminent  danger  involved  in  the  operation  of  getting  it  afloat,  due  to  the  displacement  of  the  ways  by 
the  surf. 

Plate  iii  shows  the  frame  of  the  caisson  in  course  of  construction,  and  Plate  viii  shows  the  end  sections 
nearly  completed  in  the  pit.  The  floor  timbers  of  these  sections  were  made  to  form  a  part  of  the  timber 
stacks  on  which  the  obelisk  was  lowered,  as  shown  in  Plate  iii.  Work  on  the  middle  section  could  not  be 
commenced  until  the  pedestal,  steps,  and  foundation  had  been  removed ;  and  their  removal  could  not 
be  accomplished  until  the  turning  structure  had  been  released  and  taken  down,  and  its  foundation  piers 
demolished. 


LOWERING  THE  OBELISK. 

The  preparations  for  releasing  the  machinery  and  for  lowering  the  obelisk  from  its  elevated  position, 
forty-three  feet  above  the  bottom  of  the  pit,  into  the  caisson  are  illustrated  on  Plate  iii.  After  the  obelisk 
had  been  placed  horizontal,  the  upper  section  was  temporarily  supported  on  two  spars  under  the  pyramidion. 
The  stack  of  timber  placed  to  receive  it  was  then  removed.  After  several  experiments  in  building  the  stacks, 
the  plan  illustrated  in  Plate  iii  was  finally  adopted.  Planks  three  inches  thick,  nine  inches  wide,  and  sixteen 
feet  long,  were  piled  in  groups  of  three,  at  right  angles  to  each  other,  up  to  the  level  of  the  top  of  the  pedes¬ 
tal  ;  the  lengths  were  then  fourteen  feet  for  two  thirds  the  remaining  height,  and  finally  twelve  feet  for  the 
remainder.  Heavy  timber,  diagonal  shores  were  placed  against  the  sides  and  ends  of  the  piles  to  insure  sta¬ 
bility.  Oak  beams  were  slung  by  iron  rods  under  the  obelisk,  and  fastened  to  it  at  the  points  against. which 
the  pistons  of  the  pumps  were  to  bear  ;  and  other  beams  were  placed  on  top  of  the  piles  for  the  pumps  to 
stand  on,  so  as  to  distribute  the  bearing  over  the  whole  pile  uniformly.  The  tops  of  the  stacks  were  cut  down 
through  the  middle  to  give  room  enough  for  the  pumps  to  be  worked, — (see  Plate  iii), — the  ends  being  left 
to  receive  the  weight  of  the  obelisk  when  it  was  necessary  to  shift  the  pumps  down.  The  pumps  were  fitted 
with  lowering  valves,  an  indispensable  substitute  for  the  ordinary  method  of  tripping  the  plunger  when 
releasing  the  strain  from  the  piston.  By  means  of  these  valves  the  liquid  in  the  cylinder  is  allowed 
to  escape  to  the  chamber  as  rapidly  or  as  slowly  as  the  operator  pleases,  thereby  allowing  the  piston  to 
descend  at  any  desired  speed. 


\  '-v«  cJhv  -•* 


Ip^if 

i^mmd 

-.y  Mih-nfc 


!wsmi 


mm§ 


tfelpi 

I«WkS 


vw4V* 


■p 

*  s- 

*  !*,  ' 
-3. 


X 

<D 

15 

CL 


. 

■  : 


' 


. 


1 7 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Very  great  inconvenience  resulted  from  the  use  of  small  instead  of  large  timber  for  the  stacks,  and  it 
may  well  be  asked  why  small  timber  was  used.  Relying  on  the  order  of  Riaz  Pacha  to  the  Governor,  to 
“offer  him  (the  officer  sent  to  remove  the  obelisk)  the  same  assistance  for  removing  it  from  its  site  and  em¬ 
barking  it  as  was  offered  at  the  time  of  removing  the  other  obelisk  that  was  given  to  the  English  goverment,”  and 
knowing  that  the  timber  used  by  the  English  was  still  in  the  government  store-house,  no  effort  was  made  to  find 
other  timber  until  the  time  for  lowering  the  obelisk  had  nearly  arrived.  Application  for  the  loan  of  govern¬ 
ment  timber  was  made.  The  officer  in  charge  happened  to  be  a  European,  and  he  managed  to  evade  the 
order,  even  after  it  had  been  reiterated,  by  delays  and  other  means,  until  it  was  too  late.  The  obelisk  was 
ready  for  turning,  timber  for  lowering  it  had  to  be  provided,  and  the  only  kind  available  was  the  soft  planks 
that  were  bought  at  an  exorbitant  rate.  Here  again  the  vicious  obstruction  of  Europeans  failed  to  retard 
the  work,  and  had  no  other  effect  than  to  increase  the  cost  of  its  execution.  In  this  instance  the  unnecessary 
expense  for  timber  amounted  to  $4,300. 

The  operation  of  releasing  the  turning  structure  was  very  troublesome,  owing  to  the  elasticity  of  the 
stacks.  The  total  compression  in  the  forty-three  feet  was  twenty-two  and  a  half  inches  under  the  weight 
of  the  obelisk.  As  soon  as  the  weight  had  been  transferred  to  the  stacks,  the  towers  and  trunnions  were 
removed,  and  demolition  of  the  masonry  piers  commenced. 

The  operation  of  lowering  was  as  follows  :  The  pistons  of  the  pumps  were  forced  out  to  within  four 
inches  of  their  limit  of  fourteen  inches  ;  blocking  was  then  supplied  to  whatever  space  intervened  between  the 
caps  and  the  oak  beam  under  the  obelisk  ;  the  piston  was  then  forced  out  the  remaining  four  inches,  or  as 
much  as  was  needed  to  lift  the  obelisk  clear  of  the  blocking  on  the  ends  of  the  stacks,  on  which  it  had  been 
landed  while  the  trunnions  and  towers  were  being  removed  ;  nine  inches  of  this  blocking  was  then  gradu¬ 
ally  taken  away,  while  the  pistons  of  the  pumps  were  allowed  to  descend  slowly  ;  when  nearly  down  to  their 
limit,  removing  the  blocking  was  stopped,  and  the  obelisk  once  more  rested  on  it  with  the  pumps  free.  The 
planks  that  were  parallel  with  the  direction  of  the  obelisk  had  to  be  sawed  in  two  places  to  allow  of 
removing  the  middle  section  so  that  the  pumps  might  be  lowered  nine  inches.  Those  that  were  laid  in  the 
other  direction  could  be  removed  without  being  cut.  When  the  pumps  had  been  lowered  the  process  above 
described  was  repeated.  The  average  rate  of  lowering  was  about  three  feet  per  day.  It  must,  however,  be 
remarked  that  owing  to  the  height  of  the  stacks  and  to  insure  safety,  work  was  not  carried  on  simultaneously 
at  both  ends. 

It  was  difficult  to  maintain  uniformity  of  pressure  on  the  pistons  ;  and  instead  of  pumps  capable  of  sus¬ 
taining  sixty  tons  each,  it  would  have  been  much  better  to  have  had  them  capable  of  sustaining  one 
hundred.  Considerable  delay  resulted  from  the  disabling  of  three  of  the  pumps  ;  the  system  was  new  to  the 
mechanics  of  Alexandria,  and  restoring  the  pumps  to  efficiency  was  a  tedious  and  expensive  process. 

Demolishing  the  foundation  piers  without  blasting  was  also  troublesome,  the  cement  having  set  to  a  de¬ 
gree  entirely  unexpected.  As  soon  as  they  had  been  demolished  the  pit  was  enlarged  on  the  east  side,  and 
the  pedestal  steps  and  foundation  moved  out  from  under  the  obelisk  and  placed  in  the  enlargement.  The 
pedestal  was  raised  clear  of  the  steps  by  driving  steel  wedges  under  it  until  there  was  room  enough  for  the 
end  of  a  bent  steel  bar  or  link  to  be  inserted.  (See  Fig.  L ,  Plate  xi.)  Hydraulic  pumps  acting  on  the  upper 
part  of  this  bar  or  link  then  raised  the  pedestal  clear  of  the  steps  and  held  it  suspended  until  channel  irons 
and  cannon  balls  could  be  placed  underneath.  The  pedestal  was  then  lowered  on  top  of  the  channel  irons 
and  balls.  It  was  moved  with  the  greatest  ease  over  a  track  of  channel  irons  prolonged  to  the  position 
assigned  it.  A  section  through  the  pedestal  and  channel  iron  tracks  with  the  balls  in  position  is  shown  on 
Plate  xi,  Fig.  M. 

This  plate  also  shows  the  position  in  which  each  piece  forming  the  steps  and  foundation  was  found, 
and  gives  the  form  and  dimensions  of  all  the  essential  pieces  of  the  structure,  including  the  pedestal. 
The  curious  features  of  the  foundation  are  the  forms  and  positions  of  certain  pieces  of  syenite,  and  the 
marks  and  characters  that  are  cut  on  other  pieces  that  occupy  the  axis  and  east  angle  of  the  structure. 


i8 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Whatever  their  significance  there  is  something  striking  in  their  arrangement,  and  almost  any  explanation 
is  more  reasonable  than  the  assumption  that  it  was  accidental. 

THE  MASONIC  EMBLEMS. 

The  pieces  forming  the  steps  and  all  but  four  of  those  inclosed  by  them  are  a  hard  limestone  of  grayish- 
white  color.  Three  of  the  four  exceptions  are  syenite  from  the  same  quarry  as  the  obelisk  and  pedestal 
(Plate  xi,  Figs.  A,  B,  C ) ;  the  other  one,  E,  is  soft  limestone  entirely  free  from  discolorations  and  as  purely 
white  as  the  best  statuary  marble.  The  foundation  below  the  lower  step  is  composed  of  soft  sandstone  blocks, 
rough-hewn  and  of  irregular  form,  with  three  exceptions  ;  these  three  had  been  carefully  dressed  and  had 
had  figures  cut  in  relief  on  the  sides  (Figs.  P,  G,  H).  Of  the  three  pieces  of  syenite,  two,  A  and  B,  are 
carefully  cut  and  had  been  polished  ;  the  other,  C,  is  rough  and  irregular,  the  upper  part  having  been  gouged 
by  tools  into  an  unnatural  and  conspicuously  uneven  surface.  One  of  the  polished  pieces,  A,  is  an  imperfect 
cube,  that  is,  the  height  is  less  than  the  sides  in  measurement ;  the  other  is  of  remarkable  shape,  more  easily 
comprehended  from  the  drawing  B  on  Plate  xi  than  from  any  possible  description.  The  upper  part  is  hewn 
to  form  a  long  and  a  short  arm,  at  right  angles,  similar  to  the  mechanic’s  tool  called  a  builder’s  square,  or  in 
French  V  angle.  At  the  junction  of  the  lower  part  with  the  vertical  faces  of  the  arms  there  are  three  beads,  or 
convex  surfaces  of  unequal  dimensions  ;  and  around  the  lower  edges  of  the  sides  there  is  a  concave  surface  or 
groove.  The  assumption  that  it  had  formed  a  part  of  some  ancient  building,  from  the  ruins  of  which  it 
was  taken  to  fill  up  a  vacant  space  under  the  obelisk,  would  not  be  reasonable,  chiefly  because  its 
form  is  unsuited  for  such  a  purpose,  as  will  be  very  evident  by  examining  the  drawing.  With  reference  to 
the  rough  piece  of  syenite  there  are  two  proofs  that  the  roughness  and  irregularity  were  intentionally  given 
to  its  upper  surface  :  one  of  these  is  the  tool  marks  ;  the  other  is  its  singularity  in  this  respect,  every  other 
piece  of  the  steps  and  foundation  had  the  upper  and  lower  surfaces  dressed  to  give  a  good  bearing  for  the 
layers  above  and  below. 

Assuming  that  the  forms  of  these  pieces  of  syenite,  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  they  are  syenite  while 
all  the  other  pieces  are  limestone,  have  some  significance,  an  explanation  may  be  sought  in  their  actual  and  rela¬ 
tive  positions.  The  polished  cube  occupied  the  east  angle  of  the  upper  tier,  and  stood  on  the  end  of  the  long 
arm  of  the  polished  square  ;  this  extended  across  the  S.  E.  face  of  the  structure  parallel  with  the  inner  edges 
of  the  second  tier  or  lower  step  ;  the  short  arm  extended  half-way  across  the  S.  W.  face,  and  touched  the 
rough  block  of  syenite  which  occupied  the  west  angle  of  the  same  tier.  If  there  is  any  thing  within  the  limits 
of  our  knowledge  and  understanding  that  serves  to  explain  the  forms  and  arrangement  of  these  three  pieces 
it  seems  unreasonable  to  reject  it  until  some  better  explanation  is  offered.  One  striking  peculiarity  existed  in 
the  manner  of  laying  the  polished  cube.  While  every  other  part  of  the  structure  was  laid  in  white  mortar, 
this  one  was  placed  on  yellow  cement,  and  the  spaces  around  it  were  not  filled  in,  as  all  other  spaces  were, 
with  fragments  of  hard  limestone  and  white  mortar. 

The  piece  of  white  limestone  was  found  on  the  lower  part  of  the  piece  of  syenite  out  of  which  the  square 
was  cut.  The  cube  of  syenite  ( A )  rested  partly  on  the  long  arm  of  the  square  (A,)  and  partly  on  the  piece  of 
white  limestone  (A).  On  the  block  of  hard  gray  limestone  adjacent  to  it  ( D )  an  iron  trowel  and  a  lead  plum¬ 
met  (W)  were  found.  These  implements  could  not  have  been  left  accidentally  by  the  workmen  who  built  the 
foundation,  for  the  trowel  is  firmly  cemented  to  the  surface  of  the  stone.  They  are  not  modern,  and 
could  not  have  been  placed  where  they  were  found  at  any  time  after  the  re-erection  of  the  obelisk, 
B.  C.  22. 

After  removing  all  the  pieces  forming  the  steps  and  those  enclosed  by  them,  numbering  in  all  forty- 
three,  two  tiers  of  the  foundation  were  removed.  The  only  piece  of  the  first  tier  that  was  dressed  occupied 
the  east  angle.  This  piece  is  shown  on  Plate  xi,  marked  H.  Two  of  the  sides  have  a  figure  in  relief, 
extending  through  the  middle,  that  resembles  a  snake  in  form.  At  the  angle  of  these  sides  are  two 
spiral  figures  in  relief  also  resembling  snakes.  The  upper  part  of  the  stone  at  this  angle  projects  above 


I.  STEEL  CLAMP  INCASED  IN' LEAD. 

JL.  DUDCEONS  HYDRAULIC  PUMP  AND  LINK. 


POLISHED  CUBE  OF  SYENITE. 

POLISHED  SQUARE  OP  SYENITE. 

BOUGH  AND  IRREGULAR  BLOCK  OF t SYENITE. 

HARD  LIMESTONE  WITH  TROWEL  CEMENTED  TO  SURFACE. 

SOPT  LIMESTONE  VERY  WHITE  AND  ENTIRELY  FREE  FROM  SPOTS. 
AXIS  STONE  WITH  F1CURES. 

MARKED  STONE 

CORNER  STONE  FOUND  UNDER  EAST  ANCLE  OP  LOWER  STEP. 


JKl.  LEAD  PLUMMET  POUND  NEAR  TROWEL. 

M.  SECTION  THROUGH  PEDESTAL  AND  CHANNEL  IRON  TRACK. 


1 _ U 


©'  .0 


ENLABOED 

F 


PLAN. 


SJEES  AND  PEDESTAL. 


PLATE  XI. 


■ 


mm 


. 

. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


l9 


the  surface  ;  and  where  the  spirals  meet  there  is  an  angular  recess  below  it.  The  projection  and  recess 
form  a  group  of  three  miniature  steps  above  the  spirals.  In  the  face  of  the  stone  that  was  found 
adjacent  to  this  one  there  is  a  diamond-shaped  recess.  No  other  mark  was  found  on  any  piece  of  this  tier. 

In  the  tier  next  below,  all  of  the  pieces  were  rough  and  irregularly  laid  except  two  ;  one  marked  Ain 
Plate  xi  occupied  the  axis  of  the  structure,  and  the  other  marked  G  was  adjacent  to  it.  One  face  of  the 
axis  stone  F  has  had  a  group  of  lines  and  a  group  of  figures  carved  on  it,  the  latter  in  relief ;  and  another 
face  has  an  arc  of  a  very  large  circle  extending  across  it.  As  far  as  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  the  group 
of  lines  they  may  be  divided  into  three  parts.  The  upper  part  appears  to  consist  of  three  parallel  lines  of 
unequal  length  ;  the  middle  part  consists  of  two  parallel  lines,  the  interval  between  them  divided  into  equal 
spaces  as  if  to  form  a  scale  ;  the  lower  part  has  a  line  forming  with  a  part  of  the  lower  line  of  the  scale,  as 
far  as  it  can  be  traced,  a  figure  resembling  the  cubit  measure  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  One  ot  the  group 
of  figures  resembles  a  builder’s  square,  or  angle  ;  another  is  the  segment  ol  a  circle  or  a  semicircle  ;  both  ot 
these  forms  are  hieroglyphical  characters  ;  the  other  is  more  like  a  spherical  triangle  than  any  thing  else  ;  it  is 
manifestly  a  part  of  some  figure  that  is  nearly  obliterated. 

The  marked  stone  G  adjacent  to  the  axis  stone  F  has  one  of  its  sides  carefully  dressed,  the  others 
being  rough.  On  the  dressed  side  there  are  two  rows  of  parallel  grooves  about  one  eighth  of  an  inch  in 
depth  and  the  same  in  width  ;  the  upper  row  contains  nine  groups  with  three  grooves  in  each,  and  the  lower 
row  five  groups  with  three  grooves  in  each.  The  grooves  are  cut  diagonally  across  the  face  of  the  stone  in 
two  directions ;  every  alternate  group  of  the  upper  row  intersects  one  of  the  lower  row,  and  forms  with  it  an 
obtuse  angle.  A  glance  at  the  drawing  will  make  this  clear. 

The  rapid  inflow  of  water  prevented  excavation  below  the  lower  tier  shown  on  Plate  xi,  which  appeared 
to  be  the  last  one  that  was  composed  of  large  stones. 

The  foundation  and  steps  were  removed  with  great  care  ;  each  piece  was  measured  and  numbered  as  it 
was  lifted  out,  and  a  corresponding  number  marked  on  a  drawing  made  at  the  time,  of  which  Plate  xi  is  a 
reproduction. 

The  striking  similarity  between  the  forms  and  actual  and  relative  positions  of  the  pieces  here  described 
and  those  of  the  emblems  of  Freemasonry,  led  to  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  Freemasons,  by  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  Egypt,  to  examine  them  ;  and  after  discussion  and  deliberation,  the  following  conclusions 
were  announced  :  The  polished  cube  found  in  the  east  angle  corresponds  with  the  Masonic  emblem  desig¬ 
nated  the  Perfect  Ashler.  The  polished  square  corresponds  with  the  emblem  of  that  name.  The  rough  block 
found  in  the  west  angle  corresponds  with  the  Rough  Ashler.  The  stone  with  figures  resembling  snakes  is 
emblematic  of  Wisdom.  The  axis  stone  is  the  Trestle-Board  ;  and  the  marked  stone  adjacent  to  it  bears  the 
Master’s  Mark.  The  two  implements,  the  iron  trowel  and  lead  plummet,  are  also  emblematic  of  Free¬ 
masonry.  It  is  worthy  of  record  that  the  Masonic  character  of  the  foundation  had  been  affirmed  before  either 
of  these  implements  was  discovered.  The  piece  of  soft  white  limestone  that  was  found  under  the  polished 
cube  (A,  Plate  xi)  has  been  regarded  as  the  symbol  of  Purity,  and  as  having  been  placed  in  the  centre  of  the 
eighteen  pieces  forming  the  lower  step  to  designate  the  word  of  the  eighteenth  degree. 

Mr.  Gaston  L.  Feuardent,  of  New  York,  unquestionably  the  most  expert  archaeologist  in  the  United 
States,  was  asked  to  examine  the  axis  stone  ( F ),  and  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  figures  and 
lines  on  it.  The  following  is  his  reply  : 

“  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  stone  with  the  relief  inscriptions,  found  in  the  lower  tier  of  the  foundation  of  the 
obelisk,  was  placed  there  entirely  by  accident  among  the  rough  stones  forming  the  lower  strata.  If  the  people  who 
built  the  foundation  had  desired  to  bury  there  some  record,  they  would  not  have  selected  a  mere  fragment,  but  would 
have,  as  they  usually  did,  placed  there  a  record  made  and  shaped  in  the  most  intelligible  manner. 

“  The  actual  preservation  of  the  iron  trowel  and  the  lead  weight  shows  how  little  damage  was  suffered  by  the 
objects  placed  in  the  foundation  ;  and  there  is  ample  evidence  in  the  appearance  of  the  stone  itself,  its  uniformity  of 
color,  and  its  shape,  to  show  that  it  was  found  in  the  same  condition  as  when  it  was  originally  placed  there,  except  a 
few  scratches  accidentally  and  recently  put  on  it.  Therefore  I  believe  that  the  workmen  took  a  fragment  from  some 
monument  and  placed  it  where  it  was  found,  after  having  cut  it  into  shape  to  fit  the  place. 


20 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

“  I  believe  that  a  wrong  interpretation  was  given  to  the  characters  cut  in  the  stone,  on  account  of  the  position  it 
occupied  in  the  foundation;  that  is  to  say,  that  its  deciphering  was  attempted  while  keeping  the  stone  in  its 
horizontal  position  instead  of  placing  it  vertically  as  ought  to  have  been  done. 

“  The  many  vertical  and  horizontal  lines  on  the  side  of  the  stone  represent  to  me  part  of  the  original  ornamenta¬ 
tion,  forming  a  kind  of  frame,  of  which  the  other  portions  are  lost.  The  two  hieroglyphic  signs  now  existing  at  the 
middle  of  the  stone  represent  to  me  (first)  half  a  sphere  and  (second)  the  top  part  of  a  figure  which  originally 
represented  three  sides  of  a  square,  and  these  signs  are  meant  to  represent  in  hieroglyphics  the  word  ‘  Temple.’ 

“  I  see  clearly  that  most  of  the  surface  of  the  inscribed  side  of  the  stone  was  damaged  or  taken  away  before  being 
placed  in  the  foundation,  and  the  many  accidents  appearing  on  the  present  damaged  surface  of  the  stone  must  have 
led  to  false  interpretation  in  its  deciphering,  as  is  frequently  the  case  in  reading  ancient  inscriptions  found  on 
monuments  in  a  poor  state  of  preservation.”  . 

The  conclusions  of  Mr.  Feuardent  are  entitled  to  the  greatest  weight.  It  will  be  noted  by  instructed 
Freemasons  that  he  interprets  the  hieroglyphical  figures  that  still  remain  on  the  surface,  distinct  enough  to  be 
recognized,  as  meaning  “  Temple  ”  ;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  figures  of  these  particular  forms 
should  have  been  used  to  designate  the  word  “  Temple.”  Freemasonry  is  believed  to  be  the  modern  repre¬ 
sentative  of  an  order  or  society  that  was  founded  by  the  ancients  engaged  in  the  construction  of  temples,  and 
the  whole  speculative  fabric  of  modern  Freemasonry  is  based  on  the  operations  of  builders. 

As  differences  of  opinion  on  all  subjects  of  interest  are  inevitable,  there  are  some  Freemasons  who  re¬ 
gard  the  arrangement  and  forms  of  the  pieces  of  the  base  of  the  obelisk  as  having  no  Masonic  significance. 
Those  who  do  not  belong  to  the  Order  are  hardly  capable  of  judging. 

THE  CAISSON. 

Completing  the  caisson  and  lowering  the  obelisk  into  it  occupied  but  a  short  time  after  the  foundation 
had  been  moved  out  of  the  way.  The  caisson  with  the  obelisk  in  it  had  to  be  placed  on  the  launching 
ways,  Avhich  were  laid  at  an  inclination  of  seven  per  cent.,  and  extended  out  a  distance  of  one  hundred  and 
ten  yards  from  the  low-water  line  of  the  shore  to  a  depth  of  seven  feet.  Plate  xii  illustrates  the  form  of  the 
caisson  and  the  method  of  securing  the  obelisk  in  it.  The  caisson  was  nothing  but  a  large  box  eighty-three 
feet  long,  twenty-two  feet  wide  at  one  end,  thirty  feet  wide  at  the  other  end,  and  eleven  feet  deep  on  the 
outside.  It  was  given  two  keels'  and  two  keelsons;  the  former  to  act  as  guides  in  launching,  the  latter  to 
form  a  bed  for  the  obelisk  to  rest  on,  and  both  to  give  it  additional  strength.  The  dimensions  were 
determined  by  its  weight  with  the  obelisk  in  it,  and  the  depth  of  water  at  the  end  of  the  launching  ways, 
which  was  about  seven  feet  at  mean  level  of  the  tide. 

LOWERING  THE  CAISSON  ON  THE  LAUNCHING  WAYS. 

The  accompanying  figure  illustrates  the  method  of  lowering  the  caisson  with  the  obelisk  in  it  on  the 
launching  ways.  It  was  pivoted  at  the  point  ( A )  of  intersection  of  its  keels  with  the  launching  ways,  which 
were  laid  in  sections.  The  pivot  was  an  oak  beam,  rounded  on  the  lower  side  to  fit  into  the  curves  of  the 
pillow-blocks  (C)  of  the  turning  structure,  that  had  been  placed  on  the  blocking  ( D )  underneath  the  caisson. 
The  aggregate  weight  of  the  caisson  and  its  contents  was  three  hundred  and  seventeen  tons.  To  provide 
adequate  bearing  surface  for  the  pivot,  it  was  found  necessary  to  excavate  some  distance  below  the  water- 
level,  and  pack  pieces  of  heavy  timber  close  together  over  an  area  twenty-five  feet  square.  A  similar  bearing 
surface  or  foundation  (A)  was  provided  for  the  hydraulic  pumps  (A)  that  were  to  lower  the  sea  end  of  the 
caisson  to  its  position  on  the  ways.  The  difficulties  of  this  operation  were  much  increased  by  the  contracted 
space  in  which  the  work  must  be  done,  the  want  of  light,  and  above  all  the  encroachment  of  the  sea.  The 
break-water  had  necessarily  been  removed  to  place  the  launching  ways  in  position ;  and  the  surf  almost 
continuously  poured  a  large  volume  of  water  into  the  pit.  Powerful  pumps  were  kept  at  work  without 
reducing  the  water-level  to  any  great  extent. 

I  regard  this  part  of  the  work,  that  is,  the  operation  of  placing  the  caisson  on  the  launching  ways 
and  launching  it,  as  attended  with  more  embarrassments  and  risks  than  any  other.  We  were  restricted 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  LAUNCHING -ALEXANDRIA 


' 

* 

- 


. 


. 


“ — 1 


;■ 1\  i  I 


■ 

’ 


■ 


. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


2  I 

to  an  inadequate  space  for  carrying  on  the  work  conveniently ;  we  were  operating  on  an  exposed 
coast  in  the  stormiest  season  (March),  with  the  sea  breaking  dangerously  at  least  two  thirds  of  the 
time  ;  and  we  were  without  sufficient  hydraulic  power  to  lower  the  sea  end  of  the  caisson  without 
great  risk.  Hydraulic  pumps  available  for  the  work  could  not  be  obtained  nearer  than  New  York 
City,  and  it  was  not  possible  to  have  those  that  had  given  out  satisfactorily  repaired  in  Alexandria. 

RESUME  OF  OPERATIONS  FROM  DECEMBER  6TH  TO  MARCH  l8TH. 

The  time  that  had  elapsed  from  December  6th,  when  the  obelisk  was  placed  horizontal,  to  March 
1 8th,  when  it  was  ready  for  launching,  was  occupied  in  building  the  stacks  of  timber  for  lowering  it, 
releasing  the  turning  structure,  lowering  the  obelisk  from  a  height  of  forty-three  feet,  demolishing  the 
foundation  walls  of  the  towers,  removing  the  pedestal,  steps,  and  foundation  to  make  room  for  building 
the  caisson  and  placing  it  on  the  ways,  and  building  and  laying  the  ways.  It  was  not  possible  to  carry 

on  these  different  operations  simultaneously.  Their  accomplishment  in  less  than  ninety  working  days, 

with  an  almost  continuous  surf  breaking  on  the  shore,  constantly  embarrassing  and  frequently  suspending 
work,  seems  at  this  interval  of  time  to  have  been  very  expeditious.  The  diving  operations,  already 
alluded  to,  for  clearing  a  track  for  the  launching  ways,  were  carried  on  continuously  when  the  state  of 
the  sea  would  permit ;  but  it  was  a  common  occurrence  for  one  day  of  heavy  surf  to  destroy  the 
results  of  many  days’  work.  Nothing  more  disheartening  can  be  imagined  than  to  witness  the  destruc¬ 
tion  in  a  few  hours  of  the  results  of  many  days  of  costly  labor  without  the  possibility  of  preventing  it. 
The  foreign  merchants  of  Alexandria,  who  forced  on  us  the  sea  transportation  of  the  obelisk  to  the  port 
by  withholding  their  consent  to  its  passage  through  the  city,  must  have  felt  a  grim  satisfaction  in 
witnessing  the  consequences  of  their  decision.  The  worst  result  of  their  refusal  was  the  difference  in 
cost  of  the  work,  amounting  to  about  $21,000. 

LAUNCHING  THE  CAISSON. 

There  was  every  reason  to  feel  assured  that  the  caisson  would  slide  down  the  ways  after  having 
been  started.  An  abundance  of  lubricant  was  used  on  the  ways  to  facilitate  it,  and  every  precaution 

taken  against  fouling  of  the  sliding  surfaces.  A  final  examination  of  all  parts,  including  those  sub¬ 

merged,  was  made  on  the  morning  of  March  18th,  and  at  11  a.  m.  of  that  day  the  lashings  that  held 
the  caisson  were  removed.  A  powerful  tug  was  waiting  to  tow  it  around  to  the  port.  The  smaller 
hydraulic  pumps,  which  had  been  placed  in  position  to  give  it  a  start,  were  brought  into  action, 
and  under  pressure  from  them  the  caisson  began  to  move  very  slowly  at  first,  then  more  rapidly, 
and  after  it  had  slid  a  distance  of  twenty  feet  it  abruptly  stopped  sliding.  A  tow-line  was  run 
out  to  the  tug,  and  two  anchors  were  planted  off  shore  with  cables  leading  to  the  caisson.  The 
combined  force  of  the  tug  and  threefold  purchases  on  the  cables  did  not  move  it  an  inch.  At  this 
critical  time  the  sea,  which  had  been  smooth,  began  to  rise  rapidly,  and  the  tug  was  obliged  to  seek 
shelter  in  Alexandria  harbor.  By  dark  the  sea  had  become  so  rough  that  all  efforts  to  get  the  caisson 
afloat  had  to  be  suspended.  By  the  next  morning  the  sea  had  moderated,  and  our  efforts  to  push  the 
caisson  into  the  water  were  renewed,  in  the  belief  that  it  would  slide  of  its  own  accord  if  it  could  be 
started  with  rapid  motion.  But  in  this  we  were  mistaken  ;  there  was  no  alternative  to  pushing  it  inch 
by  inch  down  the  ways  with  the  hydraulic  pumps  until  it  was  afloat.  This  tedious  process  lasted  until 
March  31st,  with  frequent  intervals,  during  which  operations  had  to  be  suspended  on  account  of  the 
surf.  One  of  these,  on  March  21st,  caused  us  much  anxiety.  The  caisson  had  by  that  time  been 
pushed  down  the  ways  to  a  position  where  it  was  about  half  water-borne.  In  this  position  the  sea 
end  was  liable  to  be  raised  by  the  waves,  thereby  causing  it  to  thump  heavily  on  the  ways,  with 
liability  of  breaking  the  obelisk  and  the  almost  certainty  of  displacing  it  and  destroying  the  caisson.  To 
provide  against  these  dangers,  water  was  admitted  to  the  caisson  and  the  sea  end  was  strengthened 


22 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

by  shoring  the  frames  against  the  obelisk  so  as  to  resist  the  vigorous  blows  of  the  waves  as  they 
broke  over  it.  When  the  gale  subsided,  an  examination  showed  that  no  damage  had  been  done.  The 
water  was  pumped  out  of  the  caisson,  and  pushing  it  down  the  ways  was  resumed.  Finally,  on 
March  31st,  at  10  a.  m.,  our  efforts  were  rewarded,  and  by  3  p.  m.  the  caisson  was  safely  moored  in 
the  port  of  Alexandria,  having  been  towed  around  by  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company’s  tug 
“  Ausari.”  Plate  xii,  A,  illustrates  the  method  adopted  for  pushing  the  caisson  afloat  with  the 
hydraulic  pumps  (P)  applied  to  the  ends  of  the  keelsons  ( K ).  The  anchor  against  which  the  pumps  bore 
was  a  timber  beam  let  into  a  slot  cut  in  the  upper  part  of  the  ways  and  held  in  place  by  chain 
lashings.  The  beam  had  to  be  shifted  when  the  caisson  had  moved  about  ten  feet ;  the  space  between 
the  pumps  and  beam  was  filled  with  blocking,  which  could  not  be  held  in  place  when  it  exceeded 
ten  feet  in  aggregate  length.  The  force  required  to  move  the  caisson  varied  unaccountably  from 
about  one  hundred  tons  pressure  down  to  not  less  than  ten.  The  cause  of  all  this  difficulty  was 
subsequently  ascertained  to  be  the  stripping  of  the  sliding  ways,  doubtless  through  the  presence  of 
some  hard  substance  that  had  been  washed  in  by  the  surf  during  the  storm  of  March  18th. 

PURCHASE  OF  THE  STEAMER  “  DESSOUG.” 

While  the  operations  of  lowering  the  obelisk  and  launching  the  caisson  had  been  progressing,  prep¬ 
arations  were  being  made  for  embarking  the  obelisk  on  the  steamer  “  Dessoug.”  This  vessel  had  been 
purchased  from  the  Egyptian  government  expressly  for  transporting  the  obelisk  to  New  York.  She  is 
an  iron  steamer  built  in  England  in  1864  for  the  Egyptian  government,  and  had  been  employed  chiefly  in 
the  Egyptian  postal  service  between  Alexandria,  Smyrna,  and  Constantinople.  Extravagance  and  corrup¬ 
tion  in  the  service  had  caused  the  withdrawal  of  several  of  the  steamers  employed  in  it,  the  “  Dessoug  ” 
among  them.  The  service  had  never  been  a  profitable  one  to  the  Egyptian  treasury.  When  the 
financial  administration  of  Egypt  passed  under  the  control  of  a  European  commission,  abolishing  the  ser¬ 
vice  altogether  was  contemplated ;  but  the  influence  of  the  European  employes  effected  a  compromise, 
and  it  was  finally  determined  to  continue  the  service  under  the  management  of  Europeans,  as  long  as  it 
did  not  sink  money  and  draw  the  deficiencies  from  the  Egyptian  treasury.  To  insure  this  result  super¬ 
fluous  vessels  and  useless  material  were  sold  from  time  to  time  for  any  thing  they  would  bring.  Very  soon 
after  our  arrival  at  Alexandria,  and  while  still  negotiating  for  the  charter  or  purchase  of  English  and 
Italian  steamers,  my  attention  was  attracted  to  the  “  Dessoug,”  then  lying  dismantled  in  the  arsenal, 
chiefly  by  the  fulness  of  her  form,  and  particularly  of  her  bow-lines.  Measurements  were  made,  which 
satisfied  us  that  there  was  just  height  enough  under  the  lower-deck  beams  to  embark  the  obelisk,  and 
length  enough  to  get  it  entirely  into  the  fore  compartment,  between  the  collision  and  coal-bunker  bulk¬ 
heads  ;  and  as  this  was  an  exceptionally  advantageous  feature  of  the  vessel  her  purchase  was  determined 
on.  Her  engines  and  boilers  were  known  to  be  in  bad  condition,  but  her  hull  was  perfect;  her  hold 
was  filthy,  and  she  had  been  neglected  to  a  degree  that  cannot  be  imagined.  To  refit  and  repair  her, 
a  long  time  and  a  large  expenditure  were  necessary,  which  made  it  essential  to  purchase  her  at  a  low 
price.  To  effect  this  it  was  decided  not  to  make  an  offer  at  once,  but  to  treat  the  matter  with  apparent 
indifference.  The  result  was  the  commencement  of  negotiations  by  the  Assistant  Postmaster-General, 
as  we  would  term  him  here,  which  gave  me  a  very  decided  advantage  in  conducting  them.  After 
several  informal  conferences  an  offer  of  £5, 000  sterling  was  made  in  writing  to  the  Postmaster-General, 
who  affected  to  regard  it  as  a  joke,  and  suggested  that  the  matter  be  treated  seriously  as  to  price, 
adding  that  other  negotiations  were  pending  for  the  purchase  of  the  “  Dessoug.”  A  firm  of  ship- 
brokers  who  had  been  trying  to  charter  or  sell  me  a  vessel  had  been  informed  of  my  negotiations 
with  the  Egyptian  government  for  the  purchase  of  a  vessel,  and  had  made  an  indefinite  offer  for  the 
“  Dessoug,”  with  a  view  to  being  bought  off  by  me.  One  member  of  the  firm  proposed  to  withdraw  his 
offer  if  he  was  paid  a  commission  of  ten  per  cent,  on  the  purchase -money.  This  was  treated  in  a 


EMBARKING  THE  PEDESTAL 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


23 


way  it  deserved ;  and  in  order  to  bring  matters  to  a  crisis  formal  notice  was  given  to  the  Ministry 
at  Cairo  that  my  offer  would  be  withdrawn  at  noon  of  December  3,  1879,  unless  it  had  been  formally 
accepted  before.  The  government  then  accepted  the  offer  of  the  brokers,  and  demanded  a  guarantee 
of  payment  within  a  specified  time.  As  they  had  no  use  for  the  vessel  except  to  sell  her  to  me,  they 
offered  her  to  me  for  ^6,000.  They  were  informed  that  the  “  Dessoug”  would  not  be  purchased  from 
them  under  any  circumstances.  They  could  not  give  the  guarantee  demanded,  and  when  the  time 
allowed  them  had  lapsed,  I  was  notified  that  I  could  have  the  vessel  on  the  payment  of  ^5, 100  sterling. 
The  money  was  promptly  paid,  and  the  transfer  effected  on  December  3d.  It  cost  nearly  as  much 
more  to  refit,  repair,  and  clean  the  “  Dessoug  ”  ;  and  this  work  was  carried  on  under  the  immediate 
supervision  of  Lieutenant  Seaton  Schroeder,  U.  S.  N.,  simultaneously  with  that  of  lowering  and  launch¬ 
ing  the  obelisk,  to  which  I  gave  my  personal  attention.  Pending  the  negotiations  for  the  purchase 
of  the  “  Dessoug,”  one  other  of  the  government  vessels  laid  up  in  the  arsenal  was  sold.  Before  the 
transfer  from  the  government  to  the  purchaser  could  be  effected,  a  warrant  was  issued  by  the  court 
taking  possession  of  the  vessel,  or  the  money  paid  for  her,  in  the  interest  of  some  one  who  had  a  claim 
against  the  Egyptian  government.  To  avoid  a  repetition  of  this  inexplicable  performance  in  the  transfer 
of  the  “  Dessoug,”  the  conclusion  of  the  purchase  and  time  fixed  for  transfer  were  kept  secret.  The 
transfer  was  effected  in  the  office  of  the  Director  of  the  Postal  Service,  whose  representative  accom¬ 
panied  me  on  board,  and  hauled  down  the  Egyptian  flag,  while  I  hoisted  United  States  ensigns  to 
the  mast-heads  and  peaks.  The  Arabs  in  immediate  charge  of  the  vessel  looked  on  in  amazement  at 
this  performance.  When  ordered  to  gather  up  their  personal  effects  and  leave  the  vessel,  they  made 
no  protest,  but  deferred  their  departure  until  they  had  prayed  fervently  and  impressively.  That  a 

seizure  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  had  been  arranged  for  there  can  be  no  doubt,  but  no  serious  attempt  was 

ever  made  to  execute  it.  A  notice  in  Arabic,  Greek,  Italian,  French,  and  English  was  posted  on 

each  gangway,  prohibiting  any  one  from  going  on  board  without  a  pass  from  Lieutenant  Schroeder, 

at  the  peril  of  their  lives.  Several  persons  approached  the  gangways  in  boats  near  enough  to  read 
the  notice,  but  made  no  attempt  to  board  the  vessel.  Any  such  attempt  would  have  been  met  by 
force,  if  necessary.  In  justification  of  this  course  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  court  had  no  right  to 
issue  a  warrant  to  seize  the  property  of  an  American  citizen,  unless  it  was  for  debt  or  violation  of 
Egyptian  law.  Neither  of  these  causes  existed,  and  as  there  was  no  one  on  whom  I  could  call  for 

protection,  I  was  bound  to  protect  my  property  myself,  with  all  the  means  in  my  power. 

The  nationality  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  a  delicate  question  to  settle.  Under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  she  could  not  be  registered  as  an  American  vessel.  Sailing  under  the  Egyptian  flag 
would  have  involved  serious  risks  and  embarrassments,  especially  in  connection  with  the  crew.  The 
British  or  other  European  flag  would  have  been  more  objectionable  from  every  standpoint,  especially 
in  the  evasion  of  laws  relating  to  ownership.  There  was  no  other  course  than  open  defiance  of  law, 
which  the  circumstances  fully  justified  ;  and  I  determined  to  make  the  voyage  from  Alexandria  to 
New  York  without  registry  or  nationality,  thereby  taking  the  risk  of  having  my  steamer  seized  by 
any  vessel  of  war  at  sea,  or  by  the  authorities  of  any  port  I  might  be  obliged  to  touch  at.  Gibraltar 

was  the  only  port  that  it  was  desirable  for  me  to  touch  at,  and  there  only  for  coal.  Personal 

acquaintance  with  the  chief  military  and  naval  authorities  there  gave  me  confidence  that  the  ship’s 
papers  would  not  be  too  closely  examined.  To  remove  all  risk  I  made  arrangements  for  taking  in 
coal  from  lighters  awaiting  our  arrival  on  the  eastern  side  of  Gibraltar  Peninsula,  in  the  event  of  any 
hesitation  to  admit  us  to  the  port. 

The  following  is  the  only  “  document  ”  I  should  have  been  able  to  produce,  had  the  “  ship’s 
papers  ”  been  demanded. 


24 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


Alexandria,  2 d  December ,  1879, 

12  o’clock  noon. 

In  consideration  of  the  sum  of  £5,100  sterling  paid  by  Captain  Gorringe,  the  Director-General  of  Posts, 
duly  authorized  by  the  Egyptian  government,  transfers  the  S.  S.  “  Dessoug,”  with  her  equipment,  into  his 
possession,  and  recognizes  that  he  is  the  sole  proprietor  from  this  moment. 

The  Director-General  of  Posts, 

CAILLARD. 


THE  EMBARKATION  OF  THE  OBELISK  DELAYED. 

One  of  the  conditions  of  the  purchase  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  that  the  government  floating-dock 
should  be  used  for  embarking  the  obelisk  as  soon  as  it  was  ready  for  embarkation.  The  English  cylin¬ 
der  containing  the  London  obelisk  had  been  placed  in  the  dock  for  repairs  prior  to  its  departure 
from  Alexandria,  and  a  charge  only  for  actual  expenses  incurred,  was  made.  The  order  of  Riaz 
Pacha,  the  President  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  that  we  should  have  the  same  privileges  as  the 
English,  was  reiterated,  at  my  request,  in  relation  to  the  use  of  the  dock,  and  every  precaution  possible 
was  taken  to  ensure  admittance  to  it  as  soon  as  the  obelisk  arrived  in  the  port.  It  arrived  on  March 
31st,  and  was  all  ready  to  enter  on  the  next  day.  But  the  Egyptian  official,  who  had  control  of  the 
dock,  had  other  plans  ;  he  ordered  several  small  river  steamers  to  be  hauled  in,  which  was  done  with¬ 
out  a  word  of  warning  to  us ;  and  before  we  could  appeal  to  Cairo  the  dock  was  pumped  out  and 
plates  torn  off  the  bottoms  of  the  steamers,  so  that  they  would  not  float  and  could  not  be  ordered  out 
by  the  Ministry.  The  steamers  were  of  such  a  size  that  hauling  them  out  of  water,  on  shore,  would 
have  cost  less  than  it  did  to  dock  them.  The  conduct  of  the  official  cannot  therefore  be  excused  on  any 
ground. 

Nearly  five  weeks  elapsed  before  the  dock  was  again  disengaged.  The  caisson  containing  the 
obelisk  was,  however,  placed  in  it  on  April  12th,  by  lowering  the  dock  to  a  depth  of  seven 
feet,  which  did  not  affect  the  small  steamers  beyond  washing  out  their  filthy  holds  and  destroying 
some  of  the  vermin  for  which  they  are  justly  celebrated.  The  official  referred  to,  fought  hard  to  pre¬ 
vent  even  this  being  done,  and  would  not  yield,  in  spite  of  peremptory  orders  from  the  Ministry  in 
Cairo,  until  I  had  consented  to  the  docking  of  another  vessel  before  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  placed  in  the 
dock.  This  I  had  to  do,  as  the  caisson  was  leaking  badly  and  there  was  danger  of  its  being  sunk 
by  accident  or  design  as  long  as  it  was  afloat.  As  soon  as  it  was  in  the  dock  it  was  demolished,  not 
so  much  to  advance  the  work  of  embarkation  as  to  insure  the  obelisk  not  being  removed  from  the 
dock  until  it  had  been  embarked  in  the  “  Dessoug.” 

There  was  a  widespread  belief  in  Alexandria  that  the  obelisk  could  not  be  embarked  in  the 
manner  proposed,  and  this  had  doubtless  influenced  the  action  of  the  official,  who  spoke  of  the 
embarkation  as  something  that  would  either  entirely  destroy  the  dock  or  at  least  occupy  it  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  business  for  a  very  long  time. 


TRANSPORTING  AND  EMBARKING  THE  PEDESTAL  AND  STEPS. 


It  had  been  intended  to  use  the  caisson  that  took  the  obelisk  to  the  port,  for  removing  the 
pedestal  and  steps.  To  avoid  delay  and  utilize  the  time  we  were  obliged  to  wait  for  the  dock,  we 
chartered  a  lighter  that  had  been  used  in  the  construction  of  the  breakwater  of  Alexandria  harbor, 
and  hauled  her  up  on  the  same  ways  that  the  caisson  was  launched  on.  After  the  lighter  had  been 
hauled  up  and  carefully  blocked,  the  pedestal  was  raised  by  the  hydraulic  pumps  to  the  height  of 
her  deck,  and  moved  on  it  in  the  same  manner  as  it  had  been  moved  aside  from  under  the  obelisk, 
by  placing  it  on  cannon-balls.  The  steps  and  foundation  and  the  pieces  comprising  the  turning  struc- 


ARTOTVPE 


MARROU'I  &  BlEnSTADT.  N.  Y. 


EMBARKING  THE  OBELISK 


Plate  XIV 


PLATE  XV. 


B.  STEEL  BEAMS. 

T.  TIMBER  PLATFORM.. 

C.  CHANNEL  IRON  TRACK. 
S.  NEW  STEP  OF  FOREMAST 
A.  BILCE  BLOCKS  AND  POSI¬ 
TION  OF  TIMBER  PACKING 


D.  BOTTOM.  OP  DRYDOCK. 

E.  CHANNEL  IRONS  AND  BALLS. 

F.  HEEL  BEAMS. 

P.  HYDRAULIC  PUMPS. 

G.  IRON  PLATES. 


SLUING  (OBELISK.  IN  STEAMEMS  HOLB 

EMBARKING  THE  OBELISK 


. 

" 


25 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

ture  were  also  placed  on  the  deck  of  the  lighter,  which  had  been  designed  to  sustain  a  load  of 
two  hundred  tons.  The  aggregate  load  placed  on  it  was  one  hundred  and  seventy  tons.  Every  thing 
having  been  secured  for  the  trip  by  sea  around  to  the  port,  the  lighter  was  successfully  launched 
and  towed  around  on  May  ist. 

The  pedestal  weighs  nearly  fifty  tons.  It  had  to  be  placed  in  the  after-hatchway,  on  an  iron 
frame  or  stand  that  had  been  prepared  for  it  and  constructed  so  as  to  distribute  the  weight  over  a 
larger  area  than  that  of  the  side  or  base.  There  was  just  room  enough  in  the  hatchway  to  admit  the 
pedestal  sideways.  To  get  it  into  the  ship  it  had  to  be  turned  over  on  its  side  first,  and  then 
lifted  thirty  feet  above  the  deck  of  the  lighter  to  clear  the  bulwarks  of  the  “  Dessoug.”  The  most 
powerful  crane  in  Alexandria  was  one  on  the  arsenal  quay,  capable  of  lifting  only  thirty  tons.  Be¬ 
sides  this  there  was  a  floating  steam-derrick  capable  of  lifting  twenty-five  tons.  Before  incurring  the 
expense  of  rigging  special  shears,  it  was  determined  to  try  lifting  the  pedestal  simultaneously  with  the 
crane  on  shore  and  the  derrick  afloat.  To  insure  proportionate  distribution  of  the  weight  between 
the  crane  and  derrick,  a  computation  was  made  to  determine  the  displacement  of  the  floating  derrick  at 

different  angles  of  the  plane  of  the  deck  of  the  float  with  that  of  the  water,  and  a  mark  was  placed 

on  the  float  at  the  point  to  which  it  would  be  submerged  when  sustaining  a  weight  of  twenty-two  tons 
on  the  hoisting  chain.  This  enabled  us  to  insure  no  more  than  twenty-eight  tons  weight  on  the 

shore  crane  by  keeping  the  mark  on  the  float  at  the  water  level,  which  was  made  possible  by  the 

more  rapid  lifting  purchase  on  the  floating  derrick.  (See  Plate  xiii.) 

The  pedestal  was  slung  with  four  parts  of  steel-wire  cable,  one  and  a  half  inches  in  diameter, 
capable,  theoretically,  of  sustaining  three  times  its  weight.  The  lighter  was  hauled  under  the  pur¬ 
chases,  between  the  floating  derrick  and  the  quay;  the  purchases  were  hooked  to  the  wire  cable  on  one 

side  of  the  pedestal,  which  was  quickly  turned  over,  and  gradually  lifted  clear  of  the  lighter  without 

indications  of  excessive  strain  on  any  thing.  The  lifting  continued  until  the  pedestal  was  thirty  feet  in 
the  air  and  high  enough  to  clear  the  steamer’s  rail.  The  lighter  having  been  hauled  out,  the  stern 
of  the  steamer  was  being  hauled  under  when  a  sharp  sound  was  heard  and  the  pedestal  was  observed 
to  be  oscillating.  It  was  known  positively  that  nothing  had  touched  it  to  cause  oscillation  or  vibra¬ 
tion.  If  it  had  fallen  while  the  steamer’s  stern  was  under  it  the  destruction  of  that  end  of  the  vessel 

would  have  been  the  result.  The  “  Dessoug  ”  was  hauled  ahead  as  rapidly  as  possible  ;  when  her 

stern  was  well  clear  and  nothing  remained  between  the  pedestal  and  the  water,  an  examination  was 
made,  and  one  of  the  four  parts  of  the  steel-wire  rope  with  which  it  was  slung  was  found  to  have 
stranded.  Only  two  of  the  seven  strands  remained  uninjured.  The  pedestal  was  then  lowered  in 
the  full  expectation  that  it  would  fall  into  the  water,  whence  it  could  be  recovered  without  serious 
difficulty.  But  the  two  strands  held  on  ;  and  the  lighter  having  been  hauled  underneath,  the  pedes¬ 
tal  was  once  more  safely  landed  on  her  deck.  The  cause  of  the  stranding  of  the  wire  rope  has  never 
been  explained.  On  the  day  following,  May  6th,  the  pedestal  was  slung  with  a  part  of  the  “  Des- 
soug’s  ”  bower  chain  cable,  by  which  it  was  hoisted  to  the  requisite  height ;  and  after  the  steamer  had 
been  placed  in  position,  it  was  lowered  into  the  hatchway  and  landed  on  the  stand  without  incident. 
(See  Plate  xiii.) 

EMBARKATION  OF  THE  OBELISK. 

During  the  four  months  that  elapsed  between  the  purchase  of  the  steamer  and  arrival  of  the  obe¬ 
lisk  in  the  port,  preparations  had  been  made  to  embark  the  obelisk  with  dispatch.  A  platform  had 
been  constructed  in  the  forehold  by  bolting  the  steel  beams  ( B ,  Plate  xv)  of  the  turning  structure  to 
the  frames  of  the  vessel,  and  building  on  it  a  timber  bed  ( T,  Plate  xv)  on  which  the  channel-iron 
tracks  (C,  Plate  xv)  could  be  placed  in  any  direction  desired.  The  steel  beams  gave  great  additional 
longitudinal  strength  to  the  hull,  and  served  to  distribute  the  weight  of  the  obelisk  over  the  whole 


26 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

structure.  Without  them  the  weight  would  have  been  concentrated  on  the  keelson.  Other  prepara¬ 
tions  consisted  in  removing  the  single  row  of  stanchions  that  held  up  the  lower  deck  from  over  the 
keelsons,  and  substituting  for  them  two  rows,  one  on  each  side,  over  the  bilge  keelsons.  The  fore¬ 
mast  was  unstepped,  and  that  part  below  the  lower  deck  cut  off.  A  new  step  on  the  lower  deck 
was  provided  and  the  mast  replaced.  The  frames  that  had  to  be  removed  to  make  the  aperture 
for  admitting  the  obelisk  had  all  been  cut,  and  the  pieces  for  replacing  them  had  been  shaped, 
drilled,  and  fitted  to  their  places  with  screw  bolts.  The  plates  above  the  water-line  had  been 
removed,  and  a  large  supply  of  tools  provided  for  cutting  off  and  driving  out  rivets,  and  for 
replacing  them. 

On  May  ioth  the  “  Dessoug  ”  entered  the  dock.  A  foreman  shipwright  from  Glasgow  had  been 
brought  to  Alexandria  expressly  to  superintend  the  opening  and  closing  of  the  aperture.  Three  gangs 
of  thirty  men  each,  of  Arab  boiler-makers,  had  been  selected  and  engaged  ;  and  as  soon  as  the  vessel 
was  high  and  dry  the  work  began,  and  was  carried  on  without  intermission  day  and  night,  each  gang 
working  eight  hours,  until  the  aperture  had  been  opened.  About  seven  thousand  rivets,  sixteen  frames, 
and  thirty  plates  had  to  be  removed  from  the  starboard  bow  to  make  the  aperture  large  enough  to 
admit  the  obelisk  at  the  angle  of  210  with  the  keel,  the  greatest  angle  at  which  it  could  be  embarked 
without  turning  it  twice  during  the  embarkation.  (See  Plates  xiv  and  xv.) 

When  the  caisson  containing  the  obelisk  had  been  placed  in  the  dock,  it  was  placed  at  this  angle 
with  the  axis  of  the  dock.  And  when  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  hauled  in,  her  bow  was  hauled  up  to  the 
proper  distance  from  the  base  of  the  obelisk,  and  held  there  until  it  had  landed  on  the  keel  blocks ;  so 
that,  when  the  dock  had  been  pumped  out,  the  relative  positions  of  the  vessel  and  the  obelisk  were 
exactly  as  they  were  designed  to  be. 

While  the  aperture  was  being  opened,  gangs  of  carpenters  were  engaged  in  packing  timber  under 
the  forward  run  of  the  steamer’s  hull,  and  under  the  track  of  the  obelisk,  so  as  to  prevent  straining  of 
the  frames.  (Plate  xv.)  Only  those  who  were  engaged  in  this  work  can  realize  the  difficulty  of  shaping 
the  timbers  to  fit  closely  to  the  iron,  and  this  consumed  a  large  part  of  the  time  occupied  in  preparing 
to  embark  the  obelisk.  It  was  so  thoroughly  executed,  however,  that  not  one  rivet  or  seam  admitted  a 
drop  of  water  after  the  vessel  was  afloat,  a  result  not  even  dreamed  of.  It  was  expected  that  the 
vessel  would  leak  freely  in  all  seams  under  the  track  of  the  obelisk,  and  extra  provision  had  been  made 
to  pump  out  the  water  during  the  voyage. 

The  space  that  intervened  between  the  obelisk  and  the  aperture  was  bridged  over  with  heavy  tim¬ 
bers,  supported  on  very  long  oak  beams  laid  on  the  flooring  of  the  dock,  directly  over  the  trusses  D , 
Plate  xv,  that  extended  across  the  bottom  of  the  dock.  The  bed  of  the  track  was  thus  a  continuous 
one  from  where  the  obelisk  had  been  landed  on  the  dock,  through  the  aperture,  and  into  the  hold.  As 
soon  as  this  track  had  been  completed,  the  obelisk  was  raised  by  the  hydraulic  pumps,  and  while  sus¬ 
pended  on  them  the  channel  irons  and  cannon-balls  E  were  placed  under  it  on  each  side,  near  the 
edges.  Soft  wood  was  packed  in  between  the  upper  channel  iron  and  the  obelisk  to  insure  uniform 
pressure  on  the  balls.  The  obelisk  was  then  landed  on  the  channel  irons.  The  balls  were  5y£  inches 
in  diameter,  and  placed  at  intervals  of  18  inches.  Plates  xiv  and  xv  give  a  better  idea  than  can 
possibly  be  given  in  words,  of  the  general  plan  for  embarking  the  obelisk.  Plate  xiv  is  taken  from  a 
photograph  made  while  the  obelisk  was  actually  in  motion,  and  just  as  its  base  was  entering  the 
aperture. 

The  power  employed  for  moving  it  was  two  hydraulic  pumps  ( P )  pushing  against  the  outer  end, 
and  at  no  time  was  it  necessary  to  exert  more  than  five  tons  pressure  in  order  to  start  it.  The  time 
occupied  in  opening  the  aperture,  laying  the  track,  blocking  under  the  vessel,  and  placing  the  obelisk 
on  the  channel  irons  and  balls,  was  ten  days ;  the  time  occupied  in  embarking  the  obelisk  was  eight 
hours. 


THE  STEAMER  DESSOUG  WITH  THE  OBELISK  ON  BOARD  READY  FOR  DEPARTURE  FROM  ALEXANDRIA. 


1 


% 


. 


27 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

The  ship’s  frames  were  replaced  as  fast  as  there  was  room  for  them  to  be  fitted  into  position,  and 
almost  as  soon  as  the  point  of  the  pyramidion  was  within  the  vessel  the  last  frame  was  up  and  riveted. 

As  soon  as  the  obelisk  was  entirely  inside  of  the  hold  it  was  lifted  clear  of  the  track,  which  was 
then  removed  from  under  it.  There  was  hardly  room  enough  to  lift  the  weight  clear  of  the  channel 
irons  ;  the  work  of  removing  them  and  the  balls  was  tedious  and  trying  beyond  description.  There 
was  so  little  room  to  spare  that  all  operations  inside  of  the  vessel  were  greatly  embarrassed  and 
delayed. 

Plate  xv  illustrates  the  apparatus  for  turning  the  obelisk  to  parallel  with  the  steamer’s  keel,  with 
the  axis  directly  amidships.  The  bending  of  the  heel  beams  of  the  turning  structure,  it  will  be  re¬ 
membered,  had  caused  me  much  chagrin  when  the  weight  of  the  obelisk  had  been  transferred  to  them 
(see  page  14).  The  bent  keel  beams  ( F )  were  utilized  in  the  arrangement  of  the  “turn-table,” 
shown  under  each  end  of  the  obelisk  in  this  figure.  The  obelisk  was  landed  on  them,  with  soft  wood 
intervening  to  prevent  injury  to  the  edges  ;  underneath  the  keel  beams  were  the  iron  plates  G,  also 
belonging  to  the  turning  structure.  These  are  shown  on  Plate  ii  in  the  position  they  were  used  while 
turning  the  obelisk  horizontal  in  Alexandria,  and  on  Plate  xxviii  while  placing  it  on  its  pedestal  in 
New  York.  Their  function  in  the  operation  (illustrated  on  Plate  xv)  of  turning  the  obelisk  parallel 
with  the  keel  was  simply  to  reduce  friction.  The  arrangement  of  this  “  turn-table  ”  occupied  two  days. 
When  it  had  been  completed,  hydraulic  pumps  ( P ,  Plate  xv,  lower  figure)  were  applied  to  the  two  ends 
of  the  obelisk,  in  opposite  directions,  and  the  obelisk  was  moved  into  position  in  three  quarters  of  an 
hour.  Shores  were  set  between  the  ship’s  side,  where  the  pumps  rested,  and  the  dock,  to  form  anchors 
for  the  pumps  to  work  against.  The  force  exerted  in  turning  the  obelisk  was  equivalent  to  about 
twenty  tons. 

PREPARING  FOR  THE  VOYAGE. 

On  June  1,  1881,  three  weeks  from  the  day  the  vessel  entered  the  dock  to  embark  the  obelisk, 
she  was  floated  out  with  the  obelisk  on  board.  She  was  immediately  hauled  under  the  arsenal  shears, 
to  re-embark  her  ballast  and  equipments  that  had  been  removed  prior  to  entering  the  dock,  and  to 
embark  the  pieces  forming  the  base  and  steps  of  the  obelisk.  The  largest  of  these  pieces  weighed 
seven  tons,  and  the  smallest  nearly  a  ton.  A  force  of  the  best  shipwrights  that  could  be  hired  in 
Alexandria  was  engaged  shoring  and  stowing  the  obelisk  for  the  sea- voyage.  To  obviate  all  risk 
of  breaking  the  obelisk  by  the  working  of  the  ship,  it  was  placed  on  a  bed  of  Adriatic  white  pine, 
very  spongy  and  soft,  and  ten  feet  of  the  extremities  left  without  support.  To  prevent  it  from  moving 
laterally,  a  system  of  horizontal,  diagonal,  and  vertical  shores  were  fitted  into  the  hieroglyphs,  and 
driven  against  the  stringer-pieces  of  the  steamer’s  hull  ;  and  the  vacant  spaces  between  the  deck 
beams  and  the  upper  face  were  packed  with  wood  so  tightly  that  the  wedges  had  to  be  cut  out  after 
our  arrival  in  New  York.  The  diagonal  shores  from  the  lower  edges  of  the  side  faces  were  notched 
on  the  outboard  ends,  which  were  driven  astride  of  the  webs  of  the  lower  deck  beams,  and  then 
shored  up  from  the  wing  stringer-pieces.  This  alone  made  it  impossible  for  the  obelisk  to  move  in 
any  direction,  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  stating  that  the  vessel  might  have  laid  on  her  “  beam 
ends  ”  without  causing  the  obelisk  to  break  adrift. 

A  judicious  distribution  of  the  pieces  forming  the  steps  and  base,  the  ballast,  and  the  pieces 
forming  the  turning  structure,  and  other  heavy  material,  brought  the  vessel  to  a  good  trim,  and 
insured  easy  motion  in  a  sea-way.  Additional  coal-bunkers  were  provided  by  building  bulkheads 
between  the  upper  and  the  second  decks. 

Providing  a  crew  and  securing  a  reasonable  rate  of  insurance  for  the  voyage  had  been  the  cause 
of  endless  trouble  and  negotiation  from  the  day  the  vessel  was  purchased  until  the  day  she  sailed.  As 
there  are  no  commercial  steam- vessels  of  the  United  States  trading  to  Mediterranean  ports,  I  was 


28 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

obliged  to  send  to  Great  Britain  for  officers  and  engineers,  and  to  Trieste  for  a  crew.  The  chief 
engineer,  a  Scotchman,  had  been  in  the  Egyptian  postal  service,  and  had  served  several  years  on 
the  “  Dessoug  ”  while  she  was  employed  in  that  service.  He  was  engaged  the  day  after  the  steamer 
was  purchased,  and  remained  on  full  pay  during  the  five  months  and  a  half  that  elapsed  between 
that  date  and  our  departure.  He  was  supposed  during  this  time  to  be  engaged  in  thoroughly  examin¬ 
ing,  overhauling,  and  repairing  the  machinery  and  boilers,  having  been  provided  with  skilled  mechan¬ 
ics  to  assist  him.  Yet  he  allowed  a  serious  flaw  in  the  shaft  to  escape  detection.  The  first  and 
second  officers,  the  second  and  third  engineers,  and  three  quartermasters  were  sent  for,  to  England. 
The  first  and  second  officers  turned  out  to  be  confirmed  drunkards  ;  the  latter  so  bad  that  he  had  to 
be  dismissed  to  prevent  him  from  killing  himself.  He  fell  twice  from  the  second  deck  into  the  hold, 
and  twice  overboard,  while  drunk.  The  engineers  were  useful,  hard-working,  hard-drinking  men.  The 
quartermasters  would  do  credit  to  a  pirate’s  crew.  The  number  of  men  who  solemnly  enlisted  for 
the  voyage  and  speedily  deserted  before  it  began,  was  forty-eight.  Despairing  of  being  able  to 
secure  a  crew  in  Alexandria,  I  sent  my  power  of  attorney  to  Trieste,  to  a  ship-agent  there,  with 
authority  to  enlist  the  requisite  number,  and,  in  addition,  to  make  a  contract  with  each  one  for  the 

voyage.  I  relied  on  having  these  men  arrive  upon  the  day  the  vessel  was  ready  for  sea,  and  on 

getting  away  from  the  port  before  they  had  time  to  ‘think  about  it.  They  arrived,  however,  the 
day  the  vessel  was  floated  out  of  the  dock.  All  but  three  remained.  One  man  that  had  been 
shipped  in  Alexandria,  named  Jacob  Zuratich,  a  Delmatian,  stuck  to  the  vessel  throughout.  It  was 

his  influence  over  his  countrymen  from  Trieste  that  made  them  remain  by  the  vessel  and  under¬ 

take  the  voyage.  As  the  “  Dessoug  ”  had  no  nationality,  deserters  could  not  be  arrested.  But  four 
of  the  crew,  besides  the  quartermasters,  could  speak  or  understand  a  word  of  English.  It  must  be 
evident  that,  considering  the  circumstances,  commanding  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  not  the  most  desirable 
and  comfortable  of  occupations.  Without  the  means  of  legally  enforcing  discipline,  the  only  avail¬ 
able  method  was  the  summary  one. 

The  embarkation  of  every  thing  but  coal  was  completed  by  June  7th.  On  the  8th  the  vessel 
was  hauled  away  from  the  quay  and  moored  to  buoys.  On  that  day  and  the  next,  five  hundred 
tons  of  coal  were  taken  on  board.  On  the  9th  and  11th  I  visited  Cairo  to  take  my  leave  of  the 
Khedive  and  his  Ministers,  and  to  thank  them  for  not  having  yielded  to  the  pressure  and  influence 
exerted  by  foreign  residents  to  revoke  the  gift,  and  for  their  steadfast  friendship  throughout.  They 
expressed  the  greatest  gratification  at  the  successful  removal  and  embarkation  of  the  obelisk  without 
damage,  stating  that  otherwise  it  would  have  been  embarrassing  to  them. 

On  my  return  to  Alexandria  the  only  thing  remaining  to  complete  our  preparations  was  the  final 
arrangements  for  insurance.  The  underwriters  had  yielded  gradually  from  their  demands  for  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  premium  down  to  five  per  cent.,  at  which  they  stuck.  I  had  insisted  that  the  marine 
risk  was  not  an  extraordinary  one  if  the  general  average  clause  was  omitted  and  their  liability  for  dam¬ 
age  limited  to  total  loss,  and  I  gave  notice  to  my  London  agent  that  I  would  pay  no  more  than  two 
per  cent.,  and  make  the  voyage  without  insurance  if  this  rate  was  not  conceded.  After  holding  out 
for  five  per  cent,  until  the  day  before  our  departure,  the  agents  telegraphed  to  Europe  that  the  steamer 
would  certainly  proceed  to  sea  without  insurance  on  the  next  day.  This  brought  me  a  great  many 
acceptances  of  two  per  cent.,  and  insurance  was  effected  by  telegraph  at  this  rate  in  a  number  of 
selected  companies.  Finally,  at  2  p.  m.,  of  Saturday,  June  12th,  the  moorings  were  cast  off  and  the 
“  Dessoug  ”  steamed  out  of  port  amidst  the  sounding  of  steam-whistles,  the  cheers  of  ships’  crews 
and  boatmen,  and  a  general  dipping  of  colors.  One  gentleman  who  had  watched  our  work  with  close 
attention  bade  me  good-by,  saying  that  he  hoped  we  had  good  boats,  well  equipped  and  provisioned. 
A  boat  load  of  the  Arabs  who  had  been  employed  on  the  work  all  the  time  we  were  in  Alexandria 
accompanied  us  to  the  entrance  of  the  port,  and  hastily  took  their  departure  when  the  vessel  began 


DISEMBARKING  THE  PEDESTAL 


j 


* 


. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk.  29 

to  feel  the  swell  and  to  roll.  To  Lieutenant  Schroeder  and  myself  the  open  sea,  with  the  com¬ 
parative  rest  and  relief  that  it  brought,  was  acceptable  and  enjoyable  beyond  expression. 

THE  VOYAGE. 

The  wind  freshened  and  the  sea  increased  gradually  as  we  drew  away  from  the  land.  The 

behavior  of  the  vessel  was  most  satisfactory  ;  her  pitching  motion  was  slow  and  easy,  her  rolling 

exceptionally  gentle.  Perfect  confidence  in  the  efficiency  of  the  stowage  and  the  ability  of  the  steamer 
to  make  the  voyage  with  no  greater  risk  than  is  involved  in  any  similar  voyage,  was  quickly  acquired 
by  the  crew,  who  settled  down  to  the  monotonous  routine  of  an  ordinary  merchant-steamer.  The 
head-wind  and  sea  continued  for  four  days.  During  one  night  it  blew  a  moderate  gale,  and  while 
off  the  coast  of  Algiers  we  experienced  violent  squalls,  accompanied  by  intense  electrical  discharges. 
Passing  Malta  at  noon  of  the  17th,  we  ran  close  in  to  attract  attention,  so  as  to  be  reported  to 
the  Maritime  Exchange  in  London.  Having  no  distinguishing  signal  or  registered  number,  the  name 
of  the  vessel  had  been  painted  on  the  bows  and  stern  in  letters  two  feet  long.  At  8.30  p.  m.  of 
June  2 2d,  we  anchored  off  Gibraltar,  having  steamed  1,738  knots,  and  averaged  almost  exactly  seven 
knots  per  hour.  The  only  unpleasant  feature  of  this  passage  was  the  leaking  of  both  boilers  in 
every  furnace,  which  prevented  them  from  making  adequate  steam.  There  was  no  excuse  for  this 
condition  of  the  boilers.  The  chief  engineer  had  been  allowed  all  the  labor  and  material  he  wanted 
to  put  them  in  efficient  condition,  had  expended  enough  to  do  so,  and  had  reported  them  thoroughly 
repaired.  Immediately  after  our  arrival  at  Gibraltar  the  fires  were  hauled,  and  as  soon  as  the 

boilers  had  cooled  off  sufficiently,  a  force  was  put  on  to  repair  them.  This  work  detained  us  three 

days,  during  which  we  took  in  five  hundred  and  fifty  tons  of  coal.  A  large  number  of  people  visited 
the  ship  to  see  the  obelisk,  among  them  Lord  Napier  of  Magdala,  the  Governor,  and  his  staff,  accom¬ 
panied  by  Lady  Napier  and  a  number  of  other  ladies. 

We  sailed  from  Gibraltar  at  midnight  of  June  2 5-2 6th,  having  on  board  a  total  dead  weight 
of  1,470  tons,  not  including  fixtures  of  the  vessel,  drawing  i5  feet  forward  and  17*^  feet  aft.  On 
the  following  day  we  experienced  a  fresh  breeze  from  the  northward,  and  a  heavy  beam  sea  which 
caused  the  vessel  to  roll  deeply.  On  June  30th  we  passed  through  the  Azores,  the  weather  having 
been  variable  and  at  times  disagreeable.  On  July  6th,  at  8.30  p.  m.,  when  i,5oo  miles  from  New 
York,  with  a  smooth  sea  and  a  moderately  fair  wind,  the  engines  came  to  an  abrupt  standstill  after 
a  short  interval  of  unusual  and  noisy  performance.  Examination  showed  that  the  after-crank  shaft 
had  broken  through  an  old  flaw  or  crack  in  the  after-web.  Fortunately,  the  breaking  of  the  shaft 
was  the  only  damage  done,  and  there  were  two  spare  sections  of  shaft  on  board,  one  of  which 
belonged  to  the  after-engine.  Boring  the  large  holes  in  and  fitting  the  brasses  to  the  new  sec¬ 
tion,  occupied  all  the  men  that  could  work  at  it,  night  and  day,  until  July  10th.  Connecting  the 
engines  took  two  days  more.  On  July  12th  we  started  ahead  again  under  steam. 

A  curious  incident  in  this  connection  is  the  persistency  with  which  I  insisted  on  having  this 
section  of  the  shaft  delivered  to  me  from  the  arsenal  in  Alexandria.  According  to  the  terms  of 
purchase,  “  all  equipments  and  spare  articles  on  board  and  in  store,  that  properly  belonged  to  the 
‘  Dessoug,’  were  included.”  This  section  of  the  shaft  was  in  store,  and  it  took  me  four  months 
to  get  the  authorities  to  deliver  it.  They  had  no  use  for  it,  and  it  appeared  to  them  as  if  I  had 
not ;  but  it  belonged  to  me,  it  was  an  excellent  thing  to  have  on  board,  and  I  never  ceased 
demanding  it  until  it  was  delivered,  five  days  prior  to  our  departure  from  Alexandria. 

During  the  six  days  we  were  replacing  the  broken  shaft  the  progress  of  the  vessel,  under  sail 
alone,  toward  New  York  was  seventy-six  knots.  At  this  rate  it  would  have  taken  us  one  hundred 
and  twenty  days  to  complete  the  voyage.  On  the  day  following  the  accident  we  communicated  with 
and  purchased  some  bread  from  the  Austrian  bark  “Nettuno”  of  Perzagno,  Captain  Emilia  Zucovich, 


30 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

twelve  days  out  from  New  York,  bound  to  Constantinople,  with  a  cargo  of  petroleum.  The  following 
telegram  was  delivered  to  the  captain,  with  the  request  to  send  it  from  the  first  port  he  touched  at  : 


SECRETARY  OF  THE  NAVY,  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  United  States  of  America. 

Steamer  “Dessoug,”  with  obelisk,  broke  crank  shaft  July  6th,  latitude  370,  longitude  470.  Spare  shaft  is  being 
fitted  ;  probable  detention  ten  days.  Until  repairs  are  completed  will  try  to  keep  between  parallels  3 70  and  38°. 


The  dispatch  reached  Washington  about  two  weeks  after  the  “Dessoug”  reached  New  York, 
having  been  sent  from  one  of  the  Azores. 

An  incident  occurred  on  July  10th  which  caused  me  more  anxiety  than  any  thing  else  during 
the  voyage,  much  more  than  the  breaking  of  the  shaft.  The  weather  had  been  squally,  with 
heavy  rain  all  day.  Water-spouts  were  seen  to  form  and  dissipate  without  completing  the  column 
several  times  during  the  day.  One  formed  directly  to  windward  of  the  vessel,  and  after  appear¬ 
ing  to  dissipate,  it  suddenly  reformed  much  larger  than  before,  and  began  moving  directly  toward 
us.  Every  precaution  was  taken  to  cover  the  hatches  and  skylights  and  open  the  bulwark  ports, 
so  as  to  exclude  the  water  from  below.  After  watching  it  closely  it  was  evident  that  we  were 
in  for  a  deluge  unless  the  course  of  the  vessel  could  be  changed.  This  was  impossible  owing  to 
the  lack  of  wind,  which  had  in  the  meantime  entirely  died  out.  There  was  nothing  to  do  '  but 
to  await  the  deluge  calmly,  for  we  had  no  cannon  to  fire  and  break  the  spout.  It  kept  us  in  sus¬ 
pense  for  about  five  minutes,  and  then  abruptly  changed  its  course,  passed  about  fifty  yards  ahead  of  us, 
and  broke  with  some  noise  about  a  thousand  yards  from  the  vessel.  The  danger  feared  was  in  the 
probable  bursting  in  of  our  decks  by  the  weight  of  the  column  of  water  which  appeared  at  least 
fifty  feet  in  height. 

On  July  13th,  14th,  and  1 5th  we  experienced  a  westerly  gale,  which  blew  very  hard  from  S.  W. 
during  the  night  of  the  14th  and  day  of  the  1 5th,  with  a  high  sea  that  almost  arrested  our 
progress  entirely.  The  behavior  of  the  vessel  was  exceptionally  good,  as  far  as  her  motion  was 
concerned,  but  she  shipped  two  seas,  among  many  others,  which  did  considerable  damage  to  boats 
and  skylights.  Very  close  watch  was  kept  of  the  obelisk  and  its  fastenings,  but  not  the  least 
motion  was  detected  in  any  thing  connected  with  them.  With  the  fullest  confidence  that  the  vessel 
was  able  to  stand  any  weather,  she  was  held  to  her  course  and  driven  through  the  gale  as 
hard  as  the  boilers  would  permit,  so  as  to  reach  port  on  the  day  set  for  our  arrival — not  later 
than  July  20th, — and  to  avoid  the  usual  but  needless  anxieties  experienced  by  landsmen  when  vessels 
are  overdue. 

On  the  morning  of  July  19th  we  took  on  board  Pilot  Murphy,  from  N.  Y.  Pilot-boat  A.  M. 
Lawrence,  No.  4.  On  that  evening  we  stood  in  toward  Fire  Island,  and  made  a  pre-arranged  sig¬ 
nal  which  caused  us  to  be  reported  in  New  York.  At  2  a.  m.  of  July  20th  we  anchored  off  Staten 
Island,  at  the  Quarantine  Station,  and  after  having  been  granted  pratique,  moved  up  the  Hudson 
and  moored  off  Twenty-third  Street  during  the  afternoon.  The  crew  and  officers  were  promptly  dis¬ 
charged,  excepting  three  Arabs,  who  had  been  brought  over,  at  their  own  urgent  request,  as  cabin 
servants.  One  of  these,  a  boy  named  Hassan,  was  an  object  of  as  great  curiosity  as  the  obelisk.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  ten  days  from  July  20th  to  30th  the  “Dessoug”  was  thrown  open  to  visitors.  On  one 
day  seventeen  hundred  and  eleven  persons  visited  the  vessel  between  7  a.  m.  and  8  p.  m. 

SELECTING  THE  SITE. 

Before  our  departure  from  the  United  States  in  August,  1879,  the  spot  on  which  the  obelisk 
was  to  be  erected  in  New  York  had  been  selected,  after  due  deliberation,  by  Mr.  F.  E.  Church,  Mr. 


TRUCKING  THE  PEDESTAL 


3i 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

W.  H.  Hurlbert,  and  myself.  Mr.  W.  H.  Vanderbilt  had  expressed  a  preference  for  the  Central  Park, 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum.  In  order  to  avoid  needless  discussion  of  the  subject,  it 
was  decided  to  maintain  the  strictest  secrecy  as  to  the  location  determined  on.  The  site  that  was 
adopted,  the  spot  on  which  the  obelisk  now  stands,  is  perhaps  the  worst  one  within  the  city  limits  for 
getting  an  obelisk  to.  It  involved  a  much  larger  expenditure  for  transport  by  land,  as  it  was  a  more 
difficult  route  than  any  other  site  that  had  been  proposed.  The  other  sites  most  warmly  advocated 
were  the  circles  at  the  intersection  of  Fifth  and  Eighth  Avenues  and  Fifty-ninth  Street,  at  the  S.  E. 
and  S.  W.  entrances  to  the  Central  Park.  The  reasons  given  were  :  the  ease  with  which  the 
obelisk  could  be  reached  by  the  public,  the  desirableness  of  having  it  stand  on  level  land,  and  the 
advantage  of  having  it  near  some  building.  The  objections  were  :  the  probability  of  having  the 
obelisk  surrounded  by  tall  buildings,  towering  above  it  and  dwarfing  it  by  contrast ;  and  the  cer¬ 
tainty  that  these  buildings  would  not  have  one  feature  in  common  with  the  sublime  architecture 
represented  by  the  obelisk.  There  can  hardly  be  found  a  wider  separation  of  architectural  design  than 
an  ancient  Egyptian  temple  and  a  modern  New  York  building.  The  best  site  for  the  obelisk  was  the 
one  that  insured  its  isolation,  and  this  consideration  resulted  in  the  selection  of  the  Graywacke  Knoll. 
The  objection  that  it  would  not  be  easy  of  access  does  not  seem  reasonable,  in  view  of  the  prevailing 
opinion  and  hope  that  the  Central  Park  will  be  at  no  very  distant  day  what  its  name  implies,  and  the 
assumption  that  the  obelisk  will  stand  where  it  is  long  after  this  has  been  realized.  Few  persons  will 
deny  that  the  Graywacke  Knoll  is  the  best  site  within  the  limits  of  the  park.  It  is  near  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  Art  and  Antiquities,  with  which  the  obelisk  is  intimately  associated  ;  it  is  close  to  the 
favorite  drives  and  walks  ;  it  is  a  mass  of  solid  granite  that  affords  a  natural  and  imperishable  founda¬ 
tion  on  which  the  obelisk  will  stand  erect  until  it  is  pulled  down  by  man  or  thrown  down  by  some 
violent  convulsion  of  nature  ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  highest  points  on  Manhattan  Island,  without  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  being  elevated. 

At  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Department  of  Parks  on  May  5, 
1879,  a  communication  was  presented  from  the  Honorable  Henry  G.  Stebbins,  in  behalf  of  the 
gentlemen  interested  in  the  removal  of  the  obelisk,  asking  that  the  site  they  recommended  may  be 
formally  selected  by  the  Department.  This  was  unanimously  agreed  to,  and  the  desired  permission 

duly  recorded.  Soon  after  the  arrival  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  this  decision  of  the  Board  was  reconsidered, 

and  the  question  remained  unsettled  until  July  27th.  On  that  day,  after  discussion  and  examination 
of  the  other  sites  urged  on  the  Board,  a  final  decision  was  reached,  designating  the  summit  of  Gray¬ 
wacke  Knoll  as  the  spot  upon  which  the  obelisk  was  to  stand. 

DISEMBARKING  AND  TRANSPORTING  THE  PEDESTAL. 

Circumstances  made  it  easy  to  select  a  landing-place  and  a  route  for  the  obelisk.  The  rapid 
tidal  currents  and  short  intervals  of  slack  water  made  a  landing  on  the  East  River  shore  undesirable, 
although  the  grades  are  more  uniform,  the  route  more  direct,  and  the  distance  less.  The  steep  slopes 
on  the  North  River  shore  abreast  of  the  park  have  but  one  break,  and  that  is  through  Ninety-sixth 

Street.  At  the  foot  of  this  street,  therefore,  the  obelisk  had  to  be  landed.  But  it  was  not  possible 

to  move  the  pedestal  by  truck  over  the  roadway  of  this  Street,  and  another  landing-place  had  to  be 
found  for  it.  The  wharf  at  the  foot  of  Fifty-first  street  was  finally  selected,  and  the  “  Dessoug  ” 
moored  alongside  of  it  on  July  31st.  The  derrick  belonging  to  the  Dock  Department  of  the  city 
had  in  the  meantime  been  loaned  by  the  Dock  Commissioners,  on  condition  that  all  expenses  incurred 
by  the  Department  would  be  paid  by  me.  Discharging  the  foundation  and  steps  was  begun  on  August 
1  st,  and  on  the  4th  the  pedestal  was  lifted  out  of  the  steamer  and  landed  on  the  dock  by  the  derrick 
with  an  ease  and  rapidity  that  contrasted  strangely  with  its  embarkation  in  Alexandria. 

The  accompanying  Plate  (xvii)  shows  the  pedestal  suspended  to  the  derrick.  While  so  sus- 


32 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


pended  the  steamer  was  hauled  ahead,  and  when  she  was  out  of  the  way,  the  arm  of  the  derrick  was 
swung  around,  and  the  pedestal  landed  on  the  wharf,  as  near  as  possible  to  the  shore.  From  this 
point  it  was  moved  by  sliding  it  on  heavy  timbers  (skids)  to  a  convenient  place  about  five  hundred 
feet  distant,  there  to  await  the  partial  rebuilding  of  a  truck  that  was  to  carry  it  to  the  Central  Park. 
This  truck  was  the  only  one  in  the  city  capable  of  sustaining  a  load  of  fifty  tons  that  was  suitable 
for  moving  the  pedestal.  It  belonged  to  the  firm  of  W.  B.  Smith  &  Sons,  who  made  a  reasonable 
offer  to  move  the  pedestal  foundation  and  steps  to  their  destination,  and  with  whom  I  contracted 
to  do  that  work. 

Plate  xviii  illustrates  the  method  of  suspending  the  pedestal  on  the  truck.  Difficulty  was  experi¬ 
enced  in  several  places  in  keeping  the  wheels  from  sinking  into  the  pavements.  They  had  only  to 
sink  nine  inches  for  the  chain  slings,  by  which  the  stone  was  suspended  to  the  beams,  to  touch  the 
ground.  Whenever  this  occurred  the  slings  had  to  be  slackened  until  the  truck  was  released,  and 
the  wheels  placed  on  timber  laid  on  the  pavement,  and  the  stone  again  suspended.  Thirty-two 
horses  in  sixteen  pairs  were  attached  to  the  truck  for  hauling  it.  The  first  forward  movement  was 
invariably  given  by  hydraulic  pumps  applied  to  the  tire  of  the  rear  wheels.  As  soon  as  the  truck 
was  in  motion  the  horses  were  started  and  kept  going  on  a  slow  trot  until  the  wheels  again  sank 
into  the  pavements.  The  route  was  through  Fifty-first  Street  to  Fifth  Avenue,  through  Fifth  Avenue 
to  the  Eighty-second  Street  east  entrance  to  the  park,  where  the  truck  was  dispensed  with.  Thence 
to  the  site  the  pedestal  was  moved  on  greased  skids.  This  stone  is  the  largest  and  heaviest  moved 
on  wheels  of  which  there  is  any  record,  and  excepting  the  obelisk  it  is  the  largest  ever  moved 
through  New  York  City. 


THE  FOUNDATION. 


It  was  not  until  August  5th  that  any  action  was  taken  by  the  Department  of  Parks  to  prepare 
the  Graywacke  Knoll  for  the  foundation.  On  that  day  four  laborers  of  the  Department  commenced 
removing  the  young  trees  that  stood  on  it  and  clearing  away  the  surface.  A  few  days  later  the 
work  was  suspended  without  apparent  reason.  The  invariable  custom  of  the  Department  had  been 
to  prepare  foundations  for  the  reception  of  monuments  and  statuary  contributed  by  individuals  to  the 
adornment  of  the  city.  In  this  case  the  custom  was  violated.  Anxious  that  the  foundation  should  be 
prepared  before  winter  set  in,  I  sought  almost  daily  at  the  Department  for  the  requisite  authority 
to  proceed  with  the  work  at  my  own  expense.  This  was  withheld  until  August  27th,  and  then  granted 
under  onerous  conditions  that  involved  a  large  increase  in  the  cost  of  the  work  of  placing  the  obelisk 
on  the  site  assigned  it. 

The  earth  having  been  removed  from  the  top  of  the  knoll,  the  surface  of  the  granite  was  levelled 
and  the  cavities  filled  with  cement.  A  thin  layer  of  this  was  then  laid  over  the  granite,  and  the 
foundation  was  replaced  exactly  as  it  had  stood  in  Alexandria,  each  piece  in  the  same  relative  position 
to  the  others,  and  to  the  points  of  the  compass.  Instead  of  leaving  the  interstices  vacant  as  the 
Romans  had  done,  they  were  filled  with  the  best  cement  obtainable,  thus  making  the  structure  as 
solid  a  mass  as  the  granite  on  which  it  stands  and  as  the  syenite  that  stands  on  it.  Each  piece  was 
bound  to  the  other  by  iron  and  steel  clamps  similar  to  those  that  had  been  used  by  the  Romans, 
which  we  had  necessarily  removed  when  taking  the  foundation  apart  in  Alexandria. 

A  number  of  lead  boxes  of  different  shapes  and  sizes  had  been  prepared  to  fit  into  available 
spaces  enclosed  by  the  steps,  and  into  these  were  placed  the  various  articles  contributed  by  the 
Departments  in  Washington  and  by  individuals.  The  boxes  were  carefully  soldered  up  and  com¬ 
pletely  encased  in  cement,  so  as  to  exclude  air  from  their  contents.  Applications  for  space  in  them 
came  from  all  over  the  country.  Some  were  evidently  prompted  by  vanity,  others  by  a  hope  of 
advertisement,  but  the  majority  were  based  on  a  common-sense  desire  to  perpetuate  some  examples 


smim 


LAYING  THE  CORNER-STONE 


. 


*  • 


. 


- 


33 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

of  our  civilization.  I  made  an  effort  to  secure  a  complete  telephone  system,  but  failed.  I  asked  the 
representative  of  the  American  Bible  Society  to  contribute  the  New  Testament,  or  any  part  of  it, 
in  all  the  ancient  and  modern  languages  and  dialects  into  which  it  had  been  translated  and  pub¬ 
lished.  He  referred  me  to  the  book-store  where  I  could  buy  them.  I  did  buy  them ;  and  they 
were  carefully  deposited  in  a  lead  case,  where  they  will  be  preserved  for  an  indefinite  period.  One 
of  the  persons  connected  with  this  Society  displayed  much  zeal  in  the  effort  to  have  the  names  of 
the  officers  of  the  Society  deposited  with  the  New  Testament.  He  did  not  succeed.  I  made  appli¬ 
cation  to  the  United  States  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  for  standards  of  the  weights  and  measures 
of  the  United  States  for  deposit.  I  also  asked  for  specimen  copies  of  the  publications  of  the  office. 
Both  were  refused  without  assigning  a  reason. 

The  Departments  at  Washington  contributed  the  following  named  articles  which  were  duly 
deposited  in  copper  cases  hermetically  sealed,  enclosed  in  lead  cases  carefully  soldered,  and  these  again 
in  a  mass  of  cement  : 

The  Department  of  State. — A  copy  of  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  colonial  charters,  and 
other  organic  laws  of  the  United  States.  Congressional  Directory  for  1880.  Fac-simile  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  1878.  Statutes  relating  to  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  post-roads,  XLIII  Congress,  1873-4.  Copies  of  papers  on  file  in  the 
Department,  relating  to  the  presentation,  by  His  Highness,  Ismail  I,  Khedive  of  Egypt,  of  the  obelisk 
to  the  city  of  New  York. 

The  Treasury  Department. — A  full  set  of  medals  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States.  A 
full  proof  set  of  the  silver  and  minor  coinage  for  the  year  1880.  A  collection  of  documents  and 
engravings  selected  from  those  on  file  in  the  Department. 

Department  of  the  Interior. — Official  Register  of  the  United  States,  1879.  Compendium  of  the 
Ninth  Census,  1870.  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  accompanying  documents,  1879. 
Report  of  Commissioner  of  Education,  1877.  Catalogue  of  publications  of  Hayden’s  surveys.  Register 
of  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  1880. 

War  Department. — Official  Army  Register,  1880,  corrected  to  September  17th.  Signal  Office 
International  Bulletin.  Tri-daily  weather  maps.  Monthly  weather  record  for  July,  1880.  General 
order  announcing  death  of  General  Myer. 

Navy  Department. — Navy  Registers  for  January  and  July,  1880.  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  for  1879.  Report  of  the  “  Polaris’  ”  cruise  in  the  Arctic  regions.  Model  of  the  “  Hartford’s 
propeller  while  Admiral  Farragut’s  flag-ship.  Silver  medal  for  Arctic  discoveries,  18 1 8-25,  presented 
by  Queen  Victoria  to  officers  and  seamen  of  the  navy.  Silver  medals  commemorating  naval  victories 
of  the  War  of  1812.  Model  of  an  improved  anchor. 

The  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals,  through  the  President,  Henry  Bergh, 

furnished  a  parcel  of  documents  relating  to  the  Society. 

Anglo-Saxon  Lodge,  No.  137,  contributed  a  complete  set  of  the  emblems  and  jewels  of  the  Order 
of  Freemasons,  in  silver. 

Mr.  William  Henry  Hurlbert  contributed  a  small  box,  the  contents  of  which  is  known  only  to 
himself,  and  a  gold  plate  on  which  is  engraved  the  essential  facts  relating  to  the  removal  of  the 
Alexandrian  obelisk  to  New  York. 

A  copy  of  Webster’s  Unabridged  Dictionary,  the  works  of  William  Shakespeare,  New  York  City 
Directory,  a  map  of  the  city,  Telegraphic  Determination  of  Longitudes  in  the  West  Indies,  Nautical 
Almanac  for  1880,  Haydn’s  Dictionary  of  Dates,  Wilkinson’s  Egypt,  an  Encyclopedia  of  Mechanics  and 
Engineering,  and  a  Compendium  of  Electricity  and  Magnetism,  were  among  the  books  selected  to  fill 
vacant  spaces  in  the  boxes.  Photographs  of  the  different  stages  of  the  work  of  removing  the  obelisk, 

similar  to  those  published  in  this  volume,  were  also  placed  in  the  largest  box.  Specimens  of  all  the 


34 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

metals  used  in  the  industrial  arts,  different  kinds  of  screws,  samples  of  boring  and  cutting  tools  for  wood 
and  iron,  several  sizes  of  steel-wire  rope,  and  a  hydraulic  pump,  were  among  the  articles  deposited. 
The  hydraulic  pump  was  made  and  contributed  by  Richard  Dudgeon,  of  New  York,  and  was  identical 
in  form  and  system  with  those  used  for  lifting  and  lowering  the  obelisk.  It  was  encased  in  a  lead 
jacket,  the  lead  having  been  run  into  a  mold  containing  the  pump,  while  molten,  so  as  to  insure 
exclusion  of  the  atmosphere  and  moisture. 

By  October  ioth  the  foundation  and  steps  were  laid  and  in  place  with  the  exception  of  the 
polished  cube  of  syenite  (Fig.  A ,  Plate  xi),  which  was  reserved  for  the  Masonic  ceremonies  of  laying 
the  foundation-stone,  this  being  the  last  piece  to  be  placed  before  the  pedestal  was  moved  into 
position. 

THE  MASONIC  CEREMONIES. 

Most  Worshipful  Jesse  B.  Anthony,  Grand  Master  of  Masons  in  the  State  ot  New  York,  accepted 
the  invitation  to  lay  the  corner-stone  with  Masonic  ceremonies,  and  after  consultation  with  the  Com¬ 
missioners  of  Public  Parks,  fixed  October  9th  as  the  date.  The  following  order  had  been  issued. 


Office  of  the  Grand  Master  of  Masons  in  the  State  of  New  York, 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  September  16,  1880. 

To  the  Masters,  Wardens,  and  Brethren  of  the  several  Lodges  in  New  York,  Brooklyn,  and  vicinity,  Greeting : 

Having  accepted  an  invitation  to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  the  Egyptian  obelisk  about  to  be  placed  in  Central 
Park,  New  York  City,  the  ceremonies  of  which  will  take  place  in  the  afternoon  of  Saturday,  October  2d,1  it  is 
desirable  that  the  fraternity  of  Free  and  Accepted  Masons  should  generally  unite  in  recognition  of  the  compli¬ 
ment  paid  our  Society  in  thus  becoming  connected  with  the  noble  enterprise  of  placing  this  historical  monument 
of  Egypt  in  the  metropolitan  city.  You  are  therefore  most  earnestly  requested  to  support  the  officers  of  the 
Grand  Lodge  on  this  occasion,  and  make  it  a  memorable  event  in  the  annals  of  the  craft  in  the  Empire  State. 

I  have  appointed  Right  Worshipful  E.  M.  L.  Ehlers  as  Grand  Marshal  of  the  Day,  who  will  issue  the 
necessary  orders  incident  to  the  parade,  and  due  publicity  will  be  given  to  the  same.  All  lodges  proposing  to 
parade  will  please  report  promptly  to  the  Grand  Marshal  at  Masonic  Temple,  New  York. 

Fraternally,  JESSE  B.  ANTHONY,  Grand  Master. 


In  accordance  therewith  special  meetings  of  the  different  lodges  and  commanderies  in  New  York 
and  vicinity  were  held  and  arrangements  effected,  resulting  in  the  promulgation  of  a  programme 
by  the  Grand  Marshall. 

The  number  of  Freemasons  that  paraded  for  the  ceremony  was  nearly  nine  thousand.  It  is  estimated 
that  from  Fifteenth  Street  to  the  Eighty-second  Street  entrance  of  the  park  not  less  than  thirty  thousand  people 
were  on  the  sidewalks.  The  disciplined  and  orderly  appearance  of  the  paraders  drew  out  much  favorable  comment. 
Each  commandery  and  division  was  headed  by  a  band,  so  that  there  was  music  at  several  points  in  the 
procession  all  the  time.  As  the  entrance  to  the  park  was  approached  the  crowd  grew  denser,  and  in  the  park 
itself  it  was  so  great  that  the  policemen  were  practically  useless  in  keeping  the  spectators  out  of  the  spaces 
reserved  for  the  ceremonies.  The  column  having  marched  to  the  base  of  the  obelisk,  opened  ranks  three  deep, 
and  faced  in.  The  line  then  extended  to  Sixtieth  Street,  where  the  Grand  Master  and  the  Grand  Lodge  officers 
left  the  carriages,  and,  preceded  by  Apollo  Commandery  and  Anglo-Saxon  Lodge,  marched  through  the  line  to 
the  platform  on  the  Graywacke  Knoll,  from  which  the  ceremonies  were  conducted.  The  Masters  and  Wardens  of 
the  lodges  followed  then,  and  the  Marshals  took  charge.  The  ranks  were  closed,  and  the  commanderies  were 
massed  on  the  west  side  and  the  lodges  on  the  north  and  east  sides,  while  the  south  side  was  crowded  with 
spectators,  some  occupying  as  a  vantage-ground  the  43-ton  pedestal  of  the  obelisk  at  the  foot  of  the  knoll. 
When  order  had  been  obtained  the  Grand  Master  addressed  the  brethren  as  follows. 

“  BRETHREN  :  We  have  assembled  to-day  for  the  purpose  of  laying  the  corner-stone  of  the  foundation  which 
is  to  again  support  the  ancient  monument  known  as  Cleopatra’s  Needle.  The  occasion  is  one  of  which,  as  a 


Plate  XIX. 


. 


35 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

fraternity,  we  may  well  be  proud,  and  while  it  is  but  true  we  engage  in  a  labor  which  has  been  the  custom  of 
our  fraternity  from  time  immemorial  when  such  service  has  been  requested,  yet  as  a  matter  of  history  connecting 
our  Society  with  the  national  character  of  this  work,  we  may  regard  it  as  the  event  of  a  lifetime  and  its  record 
of  great  importance  to  our  history  as  a  craft.  Coming  thus  publicly  before  the  world  as  members  of  an 
organization  which  commends  itself  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  all  candid  and  unprejudiced  minds,  it  is 
creditable  to  you  that  as  individual  members,  as  lodges,  and  as  commanderies  you  have  responded  so  nobly  to 
the  call  and  by  your  presence  given  your  assistance  to  the  work.  The  work  is  before  us,  and  in  accordance  with 
our  earliest  Masonic  lesson  we  will,  before  entering  upon  this  undertaking,  unite  with  Rev.  and  R.  W.  Bro.  C. 
H.  Hall,  Grand  Chaplain,  in  an  invocation  to  the  Deity.” 

The  usual  ceremonies  having  been  concluded,  the  Grand  Master  delivered  the  following  address: 

“  BRETHREN :  Standing  as  we  do  upon  ground  which  is  ever  to  be  memorable  from  the  associations 
connected  with  the  historical  monument  about  to  be  replaced  upon  its  original  foundation,  of  which  we  have 
to-day  laid  the  corner-stone  in  accordance  with  our  forms  and  ceremonies,  you  will  pardon  me  if  in  my  remarks 
I  depart  somewhat  from  the  usual  course  on  such  occasions.  The  importance  of  this  labor  to  our  history  as  a 
craft ;  the  honor  conferred  upon  our  fraternity  by  thus  being  linked  with  the  national  importance  of  this 
successful  achievement  of  the  removal,  transportation,  and  yet  to  be  accomplished  fact  of  again  placing  the 
obelisk  on  the  foundation-stone ;  the  universal  interest  in  this  addition  to  the  monuments  which  adorn  and 
beautify  this  city  ;  the  fact  that  this  monolith  represents  to  us  the  work  of  the  operative  workmen  of  centuries 
ago,  and  recalls  to  our  minds  most  prominently  the  history  of  the  past,  demand  that  we  turn  our  thoughts 
beyond  the  events  and  occurrences  of  the  present  moment  to  the  ages  that  are  gone,  of  which  this  obelisk  is  a 
venerable  relic.  This  monument  in  its  associations  brings  forcibly  before  us  that  period  of  which  at  present, 
we  know  so  little  and  of  which  the  researches  of  the  scholar,  the  calculation  of  the  astronomer,  the  study  of  the 
rocks  by  the  geologist,  and  the  skill  of  the  engineer,  are  each  year  adding  to  our  information  and  startling  us 
with  wonderful  results.  This  trophy  comes  from  that  land,  the  history  of  which,  was  long  lost  in  the  mist  and 
obscurities  of  ancient  fable  and  tradition, — a  land  of  wonderful  creations  of  human  power  and  genius,  that  has 
been,  and  long  will  continue  to  be,  a  place  of  interest  and  curiosity  to  the  learned.  Egypt  itself  is  a  book  of 
history, — one  of  God’s  great  monumental  records,  on  the  face  of  which  He  has  written  with  His  own  hand  many 
of  the  strange  events  of  the  past.  It  was  the  birthplace  of  literature,  the  cradle  of  science  and  art,  the  garden 
and  garner  of  the  world.  The  people  of  those  days  excelled  in  many  respects  the  advanced  growth  of  the 
present  century.  Could  we  but  know  that  which  time  will  yet  unveil,  we  should  be  astonished  at  the  revelation 
and  ashamed  of  our  littleness.  The  Supreme  Master,  the  great  Architect,  in  the  design  upon  the  eternal  trestle- 
board,  traced  each  cycle  of  the  progress  of  the  universe,  inspired  the  people  with  the  idea  to  be  worked  out, 
and  in  His  wisdom,  even  though  ages  have  intervened,  the  prophecy  or  design  has  been  or  will  be  fulfilled.  ‘The 
ways  of  the  Almighty  are  indeed  wonderful.’  Let  us  for  a  moment  consider  some  points  in  the  history  of 
Egypt  which  are  intimately  associated  with  the  principles  of  our  fraternity  as  a  society  of  workmen,  or  as 
conservators  of  the  liberal  arts  and  sciences.  In  the  branches  of  decorative  art  and  the  science  of  architecture 
they  were  undoubtedly  far  in  advance  of  us  at  the  present  day,  and  could  we  bring  to  light  that  which  is 
buried  from  our  sight  by  the  devastations  of  war,  the  sacking  of  the  old  cities,  could  we  open  the  grave  made 
by  the  growth  of  years  we  should  be  struck  with  awe  and  astonishment  at  the  wondrous  magnificence  of 
ancient  times.  The  character  of  Egyptian  architecture  is  that  of  massive  grandeur  and  severe  simplicity,  as 
exhibited  in  the  sculptors’  well-defined  outlines  and  in  the  colossal  dimensions  of  their  temples  and  the  enormous 
blocks  of  material  employed  in  their  construction.  The  great  object  of  the  builders  seems  to  have  been  that 
the  strength  and  durability  portrayed  in  the  prodigious  magnitude  of  their  structures  should  seem  to  typify  their 
greatness.  The  architectural  types  of  all  other  structures  of  antiquity  sink  into  insignificance  when  compared 
with  those  of  Egypt.  The  Egyptians  were  the  first  to  observe  the  course  of  the  planets,  and  their  observations 
led  them  to  regulate  the  year  from  the  course  of  the  sun.  Among  the  immense  structures  erected  by  the 
Egyptian  workmen,  the  pyramids  were  the  first  that  claimed  the  attention  of  the  outside  world,  and  while  it 
is  conceded  that  they  were  generally  constructed  to  serve  as  tombs  for  some  monarch,  yet  it  is  also  thought 
that  they  were  designed  for  astronomical  purposes.  For  while  we  cannot  suppose  that  they  were  intended  as 
places  of  observation,  there  are  many  things  in  connection  with  them — their  position,  the  exact  angle  at  which 
they  were  built,  varying  in  accordance  with  their  situation  as  regards  the  longitudinal  lines,  together  with  the 
peculiar  position  of  the  opening  or  entrance  into  them — which  induce  us  to  believe  that  the  shadows  cast  into 
the  interior  were  made  the  basis  of  useful  calculations.  Let  us  consider  them  a  moment,  and  while  we  have 
reference  particularly  to  the  pyramids — and  in  the  illustration  that  which  is  termed  the  great  pyramid, — yet  the 
application  is  pertinent  to  other  monuments  erected  by  this  ancient  people.  They  are  so  intimately  linked 
together  that  it  is  impossible  to  completely  separate  them.  The  pyramids  were  built  for  a  purpose  and  built  in 
all  respects  with  some  peculiar  and  symbolic  reference.  Every  stone  and  every  line  had  some  allusion  or 
reference  to  something  which  should  yet  be  accomplished.  The  exactness  with  which  these  calculations  have 
been  verified  proves  that  they  were  no  accidental  allusion,  and  while  it  seems  incredible  to  us  that  prophecies 
can  be  foretold  in  the  block,  lines,  and  exact  situation  of  the  pile  of  stone,  yet  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  they  have  been  proven  to  be  true  after  the  closest  scrutiny  and  investigation  of  the  leading  minds  of 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


the  world.  The  labors  of  the  ancients  in  the  science  of  astronomy  cannot  be  despised.  If  the  ancient 
philosophers  groped  where  modern  minds  have  seen  more  clearly,  the  events  of  time  have  proven  that  they 
appreciated  the  fact  that  the  sun,  planets,  and  stars  were  governed  by  fixed,  immovable  laws,  and  that  there 
could  be  no  variation  from  the  great  plan  designed  by  the  Almighty.  The  Egyptian  priesthood  2,500  years 
before  Christ  had  their  calendar  and  periods  proportioned  to  the  processional  cycle  of  the  equinoxes.  Tables 
have  accumulated  for  over  3,000  years  which  now  enable  astronomers  to  predict  with  certainty  the  exact  position 
each  star  in  the  solar  system  will  occupy  at  a  given  moment.  There  may  be  a  slight  deviation  of  dates,  but  not 
sufficient  to  invalidate  the  fact  that  they  had  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  laws  governing  the  operation  of  the  solar 


system. 

“  The  great  pyramid  is  more  than  science.  It  is  the  embodiment  of  a  great  revelation.  ‘  The  measurements, 
joint  lines,  and  minute  but  exact  markings,  calculated  at  the  rate  of  one  pyramid  unit  or  inch  a  year,  agree  with 
the  past  events  of  history,  which  must  have  been  a  prophetic  revelation  when  built  into  its  chronological 
passages.’  If  they  have  been  correct  in  the  past  the  inference  is  that  they  will  be  in  the  future.  The 
investigations  of  astronomers  have  demonstrated  the  fact  that  the  great  pyramid  was  designed  as  an  astronomical 
stone  clock  or  ancient  observatory,  erected  by  inspiration  of  the  Most  High  ;  for  it  cannot  be  attributed  to 
accident  that  at  exact  periods  of  time  of  long  intervals  between — a  thousand  years  and  over — a  certain  star,  the 
time-keeper  of  the  ancients,  is  in  such  a  position  as  to  shine  down  the  entrance  passage  of  the  great  pyramid. 
This  event  is  calculated  by  astronomers  to  occur  during  the  coming  year  at  a  time  which  corresponds  with  the 
record  engraved  by  the  mystical  lines  on  the  stone.  Jeremiah  proclaimed:  ‘The  great,  the  mighty  God;  great 
in  counsel  and  mighty  in  works,  which  has  set  signs  and  wonders  in  the  land  of  Egypt,’  standing  even  unto  this 
day.  As  we  march  along  the  cycle  of  time  each  one  has  added  some  discovery,  or  brought  before  us  the  fact 
that  in  many  respects  we  have  not  yet  equalled  the  position  then  occupied  by  the  arts  and  sciences.  In  the 
former  ages  of  the  world,  not  having  the  art  of  printing — the  power  of  the  press  at  the  present  day— they 
wrought  their  lessons  in  the  shape  of  the  monuments  of  stone,  and  we  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  the 
peculiarities  of  those  ancient  monuments,  in  the  shape  of  the  stone,  numbers  composing  the  same,  the  peculiar 
position,  or  the  mystical  inscriptions  to  be  found  thereon,  were  for  a  wise  purpose.  They  were  intended  to  tell 
their  story  at  a  future  day  and  draw  the  veil  from  the  past  for  the  information  and  wonder  of  the  present. 
Such  a  fact  demonstrates  that  the  lessons  of  the  stone  monuments  erected  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  by  inspiration 
undoubtedly  from  the  Supreme  Ruler,  cannot  be  ignored,  but  demand  of  us  the  closest  investigation.  What  we 
are  in  search  of  is  truth.  It  is  the  mystical  reward  ever  before  the  Masonic  student,  and  every  thing  which  in 
any  way  aids  us  in  our  progress  in  that  direction  should  be  carefully  weighed  and  considered  in  all  its  aspects 
before  we  accept  or  reject  the  evidence  thus  brought  before  us.  We  should  not,  because  of  any  previously 
conceived  opinion,  discard  them  hastily;  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  should  we  allow  imagination  to  warp  our 
judgment.  The  ancients  were  proficient  in  the  science  of  mechanics,  and  as  far  advanced,  if  not  farther,  than  we  are 
at  the  present  day  in  the  knowledge  of  the  use  of  the  forces  of  water  as  an  adjunct  to  the  labors  of  man.  They 
were  fully  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  hydraulics,  and  must  have  utilized  that  branch  of  science  in  their  work.  It  is 
impossible  for  us  on  an  occasion  like  this  to  examine  in  particular  the  various  departments  of  art  and  science  of 
which  Egypt  was  the  home.  They  were  a  wonderful  race,  combining  within  themselves  all  the  branches  which 
adorn,  beautify,  and  add  to  the  reputation  of  a  people  when  directed  in  the  right  channel.  Their  works,  whether 
the  obelisks,  pyramids,  temples,  palaces,  tombs,  or  other  structures,  were  all  on  a  colossal  scale.  It  has  been  a 
wonder  to  many  how  the  ancients  could  have  moved  the  immense  blocks  of  stone  used  in  the  monuments  of 
ancient  times,  but  it  can  be  no  longer,  for  while  they  did  not  have  all  the  appliances  of  mechanical  skill  extant 
to-day,  yet  they  were  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  laws  and  forces  of  nature,  adapted  them  to  their  wants, 
and  rendered  them  serviceable  in  their  vast  undertakings.  The  advance  which  has  been  made  in  science  by  the 
present  generation  is  in  the  utilization  of  electricity,  and  more  especially  in  the  line  of  chemistry,  the  combination 
of  different  elements  to  create  a  new  source  of  power.  The  steam-engine  is  simply  the  application  of  chemistry 
in  utilizing  the  elements  of  water  in  the  form  of  units  of  steam,  in  conjunction  with  mechanical  appliances. 

“  Egypt  abounded  in  obelisks,  or  monoliths,  as  they  are  termed,  and  they  were  erected  to  commemorate 
some  particular  event,  perpetuate  the  reputation,  or  hand  down  to  posterity  the  glory,  of  some  great  monarch. 
They  were  erected  in  great  numbers,  and  many  of  them  have  been  removed  to  Europe  to  add  to  the  trophies 
of  some  city.  That  of  which  we  have  to-day  laid  the  foundation-stone  was  one  of  two  originally  located  at 
Heliopolis  some  3,400  years  ago,  and  afterward,  23  years  B.  C.,  removed  to  Alexandria,  where  they  received  the 
name  of  Cleopatra’s  Needles.  One  of  these  now  adorns  the  city  of  London,  and  the  other  will  add  to  the 
attractiveness  of  this  place  and  recall  to  our  minds,  by  its  allusions,  the  important  lessons  of  past  centuries.  You 
will  pardon  me  if  I  have  devoted  too  much  time  to  this  part  of  my  address ;  but  in  considering  the  work  of 
to-day,  the  foundation  of  the  result  yet  to  be  attained,  my  thoughts  have  turned  instinctively  to  the  past,  of 
which  this  obelisk  is  to  me  a  reminder.  We  cannot  gaze  upon  it  without  desiring  to  know  of  the  land  whence 
it  came,  the  status  of  the  people,  and  especially  of  the  evidences  of  skill  of  the  operative  workmen  of  those 
times.  This  is  especially  true  when  we  consider  that  our  Society  was  originally  of  the  operative  character,  and 
that  as  the  reward  of  the  labor  of  one  of  our  brethren  of  the  present,  discoveries  have  been  made  in  the 
removal  of  the  obelisk  from  its  Eastern  home  which,  in  the  judgment  of  many,  seem  to  have  an  allusion  to 


Copyright.  1881,  by  HARROUN  8c  BIERSTADT  New  York 


■» 


% 

* 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


37 


the  fraternity  of  which  we  are  members.  Masonry  may  be  divided  into  two  periods :  the  operative  and 
speculative.  It  was  originally  a  school  of  architecture  and  a  promoter  of  the  sciences.  In  its  operative 
character  Masonry  applied  the  unlimited  resources  of  architectural  skill  to  develop  Divine  ideas  through 
symbolized  stone.  It  awakened  the  emotional  element  of  the  people  in  the  exquisite  temples  of  worship,  and 
it  elevated  their  aspirations  in  art  productions  of  wondrous  beauty  and  uniformity.  These  guilds  travelled  from 
place  to  place  engaging  in  the  work,  and  in  all  sections  is  to  be  found  that  uniformity  of  detail  which  demon¬ 
strates  that  they  were  combined  into  societies  to  carry  out  a  well-defined  and  arranged  system.  There  have 
been  operative  societies  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  They  flourished  in  Egypt  and  we  see  their  handiwork  in 
the  monuments,  temples,  and  pyramids  of  that  day.  We  find  traces  of  them  among  the  Greeks,  in  the  introduction 
of  peculiar  characteristics  of  architecture  into  Rome.  We  find  at  one  time  that  the  home  of  the  arts  and 
sciences  was  located  in  the  Orient,  especially  at  Byzantium.  We  find  it  perpetuated  in  the  Roman  colleges 
instituted  by  Numa  Pompilius.  We  find  it  carried  into  Britain  with  the  Roman  conquerors.  It  is  generally 
conceded  that  Masonry  as  an  operative  science  came  from  the  East,  was  incorporated  with  the  guilds  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  subsequently  constituted  an  essential  part  of  Masonry  of  the  present  day.  We  cannot  be 
expected  to  enter  into  minute  detail,  and  we  sketch  the  outline  only  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  the 
proposition,  that  we  can  justly  claim  that  the  foundation  of  our  speculative  organization  rests  upon  and  is  the 
natural  outgrowth  of  the  ancient  operative  corporations  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  they  in  turn  derived  their  origin 
from  the  still  older  societies  banded  together  for  the  same  purpose.  I  do  not  claim  that  all  societies  of  the 
past  engaged  as  operative  bands  were  Masonic  in  their  nature,  for  we  know  that  they  combined  religious 
forms  and  ceremonies  in  many  of  the  most  remote,  which  are  entirely  foreign  and  antagonistic  to  Masonry  of 
the  present ;  but  I  think  that  we  can  fairly  claim  that  the  various  points  which  these  societies  present  in 
common,  and  which  in  some  respects  are  to  be  found  in  our  Society  as  at  present  organized,  cannot  have  been 
the  result  of  accident  or  the  work  of  chance.  Our  Society  is  the  natural  outgrowth  of  these  societies,  and 
while  we  build  for  a  nobler  purpose  and  a  higher  ideal,  yet  the  object  which  each  endeavors  to  perpetuate 

and  promote  is  in  spirit  harmonious.  In  its  early  history  the  operative  workmen  by  all  the  resources  of  their 

art  outlined  and  perfected  Divine  truths  in  the  sculptured  stone.  They  wrought  out  in  granite  blocks  the 
thoughts  and  aspirations  of  their  day.  They  worked  for  a  wise  purpose,  and  were  actuated  by  a  combined 
policy.  Every  object  was  designed  to  develop  some  great  idea  or  to  perpetuate  some  event  of  importance. 
They  left  the  traces  of  their  work  behind  them,  and  in  the  temples,  pyramids,  monuments,  and  other  results 
of  their  labor  do  we  find  the  distinctive  marks  of  the  craft.  The  marks  of  the  workmen  upon  their  work  trace 
their  progress,  and  the  similitude  to  be  found  in  the  mystical  marks  proves  that,  in  some  respects  at  least,  they 
must  have  possessed  a  common  knowledge  and  been  actuated  by  the  same  purposes.  This  is  one  of  the 
essential  points  which  have  been  demonstrated  to  us  by  the  discoveries  made  at  the  exhumation  of  the  foundation 

of  this  obelisk.  We  find  delineated  there  certain  emblems  which  are  to  be  found  in  common  use  among  the 

operative  craftsmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  it  is  an  evidence  that  these  marks  are  definitive  mementoes  of  a 
systematic  labor.  They  are  suggestive  of  a  connection  which  may  have  existed  by  regular  sequence  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  builders.  I  do  not,  however,  consider  that  we  should  regard  these  marks  as  being 
symbolic,  for  while  such  an  inference  may  be  drawn,  yet  the  geometrical  outlines  should  not  be  accepted  without 
qualification.  We  find  that  they  labored  with  the  same  tools  that  are  preserved  in  our  Society  and  regarded 
by  us  in  a  symbolic  sense  as  teaching  moral  lessons.  Now,  brethren,  let  us  consider  for  a  few  moments  these 
discoveries  with  reference  to  Masonic  history. 

“  I  touch  upon  the  point  because  it  has  been  so  prominently  brought  before  the  public  in  connection  with 
this  obelisk,  and  especially  because  in  the  judgment  of  many  they  seem  to  have  a  direct  allusion  to  our  fraternity. 
In  considering  these  discoveries  from  a  Masonic  standpoint  we  must  eliminate  from  our  minds  the  Masonry  of 
to-day  as  now  organized.  ‘History,’  says  Cicero,  ‘is  the  light  of  truth.  It  differs  from  symbolism  in  that  we 
expect  and  demand  that  it  should  be  conclusive,  that  each  link  should  follow  the  other  in  regular  order,  and 
when  thus  presented  we  should  accept  it  as  true.’  It  is  a  common  remark  that  all  history  is  uncertain,  and  if 
this  be  true  in  its  full  extent  there  would  be  little  use  in  attempting  to  show  the  value  of  that  which  cannot  be 
known  with  certainty.  But  although  many  events,  or  rather  the  minute  circumstances  of  such  events,  are 
uncertain,  the  most  valuable  part  of  history  rests  upon  visible  monuments,  such  as  pillars,  edifices,  heaps  of  stones, 
etc.,  erected  upon  the  occasion  of  remarkable  events.  These  monuments  attracting  the  attention  of  the  rising 
generation  would  naturally  cause  such  inquiries  concerning  their  origin  and  use  as  would  long  preserve  the 
knowledge  of  the  transactions  to  which  they  refer.  It  is  questionable  to  my  mind  whether  we  are  to  confine 
ourselves  to  the  historical  rule — that  is,  to  limit  our  views  to  that  which  can  only  be  proven  by  indisputable 
facts  and  consecutive  links  to  be  true.  Should  we  not  take  a  broader  ground  and  look  to  the  principles  which 
antedate  the  time  assumed  for  the  origin  of  Masonry  as  at  present  constituted?  There  can  be  no  question 
but  that  in  the  secret  societies  of  Egypt  are  to  be  found  some  elements  now  embraced  in  the  principles  or 
symbolism  of  Masonry  of  the  present,  and  yet,  notwithstanding  this,  I  am  not  prepared  to  state  that  we  should 
consider  that  Freemasonry  existed  in  those  days.  We  cannot  honestly  claim,  because  of  such  traces,  that  those 
societies  or  institutions  were  Masonic  in  their  nature.  In  the  annals  of  our  craft  there  have  been  handed  down 
to  us  much  that  is  mythical  and  traditionary  in  its  nature,  and  many  of  the  old  writers  on  Masonic  history  have 


38 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

in  the  support  of  their  theories  given  us  much  that  is  visionary.  We  all  know  that  when  we  enter  the  field  of 
speculation  there  is  really  no  limit  to  the  extent  it  may  be  carried.  Cast  your  eyes  upon  the  fleeting  clouds 
of  the  firmament  as  they  pass  along,  give  the  imagination  full  play,  and  you  create  many  fantastic  and  strange 
pictures  ;  curb  the  imagination,  look  again,  they  are  after  all  only  clouds.  Do  not  understand  me  as  detracting 
in  the  least  degree  from  the  importance  of  these  discoveries.  They  may  have  within  them  elements  which  may 
prove  much,  but  I  do  not  think  we  should  hastily  decide  that  they  are  conclusive. 

“  The  antiquity  of  Masonry  in  its  principles  we  must  with  one  voice  concede ;  for  the  spirit  of  our 
institution  includes  all  that  is  good  and  elevating  to  the  human  race,  and,  as  a  system  of  morals,  ranks  with 
religion,  leaving  each  one  in  that  respect  to  be  governed  by  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience  and  in  accordance 
with  his  peculiar  belief.  I  should  be  glad  if  from  the  discoveries  which  have  been,  or  may  yet  be  made, 
we  might  be  able  to  successfully  trace  the  history  of  our  institution  back  through  the  past,  for  we  all  have  a 
particular  veneration  for  age.  It  is  a  principle  which  is  imbued  into  our  feelings  at  early  childhood  and  grows 

with  our  years.  In  the  proper  regard  which  we  have  for  antiquity  do  not  let  us  rest  upon  and  be  content  with 

that  ;  the  present  is  given  for  our  field.  We  are  to  improve  our  opportunities,  labor  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
vital  principles  of  our  organization,  and  by  so  doing  make  a  record  which  shall  endure  through  the  ages  to  come, 
so  that  when  the  monuments  and  temples  have  crumbled  to  dust,  the  good  deeds  of  Masonry  shall  stand  out  on 
its  escutcheon  brighter  and  brighter  with  the  passing  years.  The  effect  of  these  discoveries  will  be  productive 
of  one  result  at  least.  It  will  awaken  new  zeal  in  the  student,  and  it  is  possible  that  some  things  which  may 
now  seem  to  be  curious  may  lead  to  further  discoveries  which  will  demonstrate  a  connection  between  the  ancient 
and  modern  that  we  are  not  yet  prepared  to  admit.  You  will  understand  that  I  am  expressing  individual  views. 

When  I  first  heard  of  these  discoveries  I  gave  them  no  consideration  whatever,  and  while  I  have  had  no 

opportunity  to  thoroughly  examine  them,  yet  there  are  some  peculiarities  which  seem  to  me  worthy  of  the 
careful  consideration  of  the  Masonic  student.  Let  them  be  tested  by  the  crucible  of  time,  which  may  yet 
eliminate  the  dross  and  present  the  truth  in  its  purity.  The  world  we  live  in  is  made  up  of  the  occurrences  of 
the  past,  and  it  is  the  work  of  the  investigator,  the  geologist,  the  astronomer,  the  philosopher,  and  the  student 
in  any  specialty,  to  examine,  to  dig  out,  to  look  into,  to  consider,  and  to  analyze  that  which  has  been  covered 
up  by  the  operations  of  nature  or  the  lapse  of  time.  Every  year  presents  new  facts,  develops  new  truths,  which 
enlighten  and  render  intelligible  many  things  which  have  for  ages  been  shrouded  in  darkness,  or  subject  to  the 
claim  of  speculation.  Our  world,  which  seems  complete  in  itself  and  is  remarkable  for  its  achievements, 
appliances,  and  results,  has  passed  through  wonderful  changes ;  and  while  we  boast  of  the  intelligence  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  yet  when  we  uncover  and  bring  to  light  the  buried  treasures  of  the  past,  we  find  that  even 
with  our  boasted  superiority  we  do  not  equal  the  skill  of  the  ancients.  The  monuments  of  the  past  are  to  be 
considered  by  us  as  representatives  of  some  grand  historical  event  in  the  history  of  those  nations,  or  as  memorials 
of  their  knowledge  perpetuated  in  the  form  of  stone.  The  history  of  the  world  has  not  yet  been  written,  neither 
has  the  history  of  Masonry,  and  even  though  ‘  the  mills  of  God  grind  slowly,’  yet  all  incongruities  will  finally 
be  reduced  to  an  even  and  consistent  nature,  and  the  almighty  power  of  truth  shall  prevail.  In  conclusion, 
brethren,  there  is  nothing  done  in  Masonry  that  is  not  for  a  purpose  and  is  not  designed  to  impress  its 
lessons  upon  us.  What  is  the  design  upon  the  trestle-board  to-day  ?  What  has  been  brought  prominently 
before  you  on  this  occasion?  What  thought  is  uppermost  in  your  minds?  Is  it  not  that  a  man’s  work  in  this 
world  lives  long  after  he  has  laid  down  the  implements  of  labor,  and  that  his  influence  does  not  entirely  cease 
with  the  termination  of  life’s  powers?  This  obelisk  erected  thousands  of  years  ago  is  not  without  its  lesson  to 
us  of  to-day.  The  ancient  workman  did  not  build  for  an  age,  but  for  eternity.  So  with  us,  brethren  ;  we  may 
not  consider  that  our  efforts  amount  to  much  of  themselves,  but  nevertheless  every  one  has  his  influence,  and 
in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  we  contribute  to  the  aggregate  whole.  Let  it  be  our  endeavor  therefore  to  lay  the 
foundation  of  character  on  a  broad,  sure,  and  deep  foundation;  let  it  be  such  as  will  bear  the  application  of 
the  plumb,  square,  and  level  ;  let  us  continue  to  build  upon  that  foundation  a  character  which  is  above  reproach 
in  the  sight  of  Him  Who  ruleth  all  things.  And,  when  finally  we  have  completed  our  task,  erected  a  monument 
of  moral  grandeur  and  symmetry,  achieved  something  which  is  for  the  welfare  and  advancement  of  the  human 
race,  then  in  after  years  the  coming  generations  will  treasure  our  memory,  imitate  our  example,  point  to  our 
deeds,  and  draw  inspiration  from  our  age  as  worthy  of  their  veneration.  Such  a  monument  will  be  more 
enduring  than  even  that  of  stone;  and  the  chiselled  record,  long  after  the  tracings  upon  the  stone  shall  have 
become  obliterated,  will  stand  out  in  its  original  sharpness,  telling  of  grand  enterprises  and  noble  works,  which  are 
the  real  monuments  of  a  successful  life.  Let  us  therefore  labor  faithfully  in  the  present,  looking  forward  to  the 
reward  promised  to  him  who  performs  his  whole  duty,  and  the  past,  present,  and  future  of  each  and  every  one 
will  entitle  him  to  the  salutation:  ‘Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant.’” 

The  benediction  was  then  pronounced  by  R.  W.  and  Rev.  Brother  J.  Bradford  Cleaver,  Grand  Chaplain,  and 
the  ceremonies  were  concluded. 


The  only  thing  remaining  to  complete  the  structure  on  which  the  obelisk  was  to  stand  was  to 
move  the  pedestal  from  its  temporary  resting-place  near  by  on  the  west  side  of  the  foundation  to  its 


CROSS  SECTION  through:  obeeisk.anb  pontoons. 


amvnv  wM  ABWMvaq 


• 

' 


. 


39 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

proper  position.  This  was  accomplished  on  October  nth.  Building  the  masonry  piers  for  the  turning 

structure”  (Plates  xxvii  and  xxviii,  G )  was  pushed  forward  rapidly.  By  November  30th  the  turning 

structure  was  erected  on  them  ready  for  the  obelisk. 

DISEMBARKING  THE  OBELISK. 

Almost  the  first  thing  that  occupied  my  attention  on  arriving  in  New  York  on  July  20th  was 
the  arrangement  for  disembarking  the  obelisk.  It  was  very  soon  discovered  that  there  was  only  one 
dry  dock  at  or  near  the  city  in  which  it  could  be  disembarked  by  reversing  the  plan  of  embarking  it. 
The  owners  of  this  dock  had  also  discovered  this  fact.  On  opening  negotiations  with  their  representa¬ 
tive  it  was  evident  that  they  were  prepared  to  dictate  their  own  terms  for  the  use  of  the  dock  without 
regard  to  the  customary  charges.  They  had  the  right  to  fix  on  whatever  price  they  pleased  and  make 
their  own  conditions  for  the  use  of  their  property.  They  fixed  on  a  price  in  excess  of  that  charged 
for  other  steamers,  and  made  the  condition  that  I  must  give  security  for  any  injury  that  might  result 
to  their  property  from  disembarking  the  obelisk.  These  terms  contrast  strangely  with  the  arrangements 
made  by  the  Egyptian  government,  which  gave  me  the  free  use  of  the  dock  in  Alexandria  for  an 

indefinite  period,  without  conditions  as  to  injury,  and  charged  only  for  the  actual  expenditure  of  fuel 

and  labor  in  raising  and  lowering  the  steamer.  I  offered  the  dock  owners  the  same  rates  as  were 
paid  by  other  steamers,  and  proposed  the  appointment  of  a  commission  of  experts  to  watch  the  oper¬ 
ation  of  disembarking  the  obelisk  and  decide  what  amount  of  damages,  if  any,  should  be  paid  them 
resulting  therefrom.  The  answer  to  this  was  to  the  effect  that  unless  I  accepted  their  terms  and 
conditions  at  once  they  would  not  agree  to  take  the  “  Dessoug  ”  on  the  dock  at  any  fixed  date, 
according  to  turn,  but  would  leave  the  disembarkation  of  the  obelisk  to  some  time  when  there  was  no 
immediate  demand  for  the  dock.  Without  replying,  I  left  the  office,  determined  to  devise  some  other 
plan  for  disembarking  it. 

At  first  I  thought  of  taking  the  “  Dessoug  ”  to  Philadelphia  or  Baltimore,  disembarking  the  obelisk 
in  the  spacious  dry  dock  in  either  of  these  cities,  and  bringing  it  to  New  York  on  floats  by  canal. 
Negotiations  with  the  dock  owners  or  their  representatives  developed  the  same  feeling  as  that  existing 
in  New  York  as  to  extra  charges.  Besides  this  there  would  have  been  no  end  of  obstacles  to  be 
overcome  in  connection  with  the  Customs  authorities  and  navigation  laws.  The  “  Dessoug  ”  had 
neither  register  nor  nationality,  and  could  not  leave  the  port  of  New  York.  The  next  plan  that 
suggested  itself  to  my  mind  was  the  construction  of  a  marine  railway  at  the  foot  of  Ninety-sixth 
Street,  North  River,  where  the  obelisk  was  to  be  landed  on  Manhattan  Island,  on  which  to  haul  the 
“  Dessoug’s  ”  bow  out  of  water,  and  then  haul  the  obelisk  out  of  her  hold  on  to  the  shore.  This 
was  found  to  be  impracticable  on  account  of  the  Hudson  River  Railway,  which  skirts  the  shore,  and 
the  abrupt  increase  of  depth  close  to  the  river  bank.  Besides  these  objections  were  the  cost,  and 
the  condition  exacted  by  the  Dock  Department,  that  the  structure  should  be  entirely  removed  and 
the  piles  pulled  out  after  the  disembarkation  of  the  obelisk.  Removal  would  have  cost  almost  as 
much  as  construction. 

Disembarking  the  obelisk  while  the  “  Dessoug  ”  was  on  a  marine  railway  was  entirely  practicable 
and  as  easily  accomplished  as  if  the  steamer  were  in  a  dock.  But  getting  the  obelisk  afloat  with 
moderate  expense  after  it  had  been  disembarked,  so  as  to  remove  it  to  the  foot  of  Ninety-sixth 
Street,  was  the  difficult  problem  to  solve.  After  having  almost  despaired  of  being  able  to  accomplish 
my  object  without  yielding  to  the  demands  of  the  dock  company,  I  reached  a  solution  that  may  be 
summed  up  in  the  word  tide.  I  determined  to  make  the  rising  tide  lift  the  obelisk  and  the  falling 
tide  land  it.  There  would  be  no  lack  of  power. 

Before  communicating  my  plans  to  any  one,  I  visited  incognito  all  the  marine  railways  on  the  shores 
of  New  York  Bay,  and  fixed  on  a  new  one  at  Staten  Island  as  the  best  adapted  to  my  purpose.  An 


4o 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 


illustration  and  advertisement  in  the  Daily  Graphic  had  attracted  my  attention  to  it.  The  proprietor 
had  no  knowledge  of  my  plans  until  the  terms  of  an  agreement  had  been  entered  into  for  the 
occupation  of  his  slip.  Had  he  then  changed  his  mind  I  had  two  other  marine  railways  in  view,  the 
proprietors  of  which  were  ready  to  accept  my  offer.  Every  thing  was  arranged  satisfactorily.  The 
“  Dessoug’s  ”  bow  was  hauled  out  of  water  on  August  21st,  at  Lawler’s  Marine  Railway,  on  the  east 
shore  of  Staten  Island.  Iron  shipwrights  had  been  engaged  ;  and  the  work  of  opening  the  aperture 
was  begun  on  August  22d,  and  completed  on  the  29th. 

While  this  was  in  progress  a  disembarking  stage  on  piles  had  been  prepared  adjacent  to  the  marine 
railway  to  receive  the  obelisk.  Plate  xix  illustrates  the  plan  and  section  of  the  disembarking  stage, 
and  shows  the  relative  positions  of  the  steamer’s  bow  ( A ),  the  marine  railway  (£),  and  the  disembarking 
stage  and  its  approach  (C).  Two  rows  of  piles  were  driven  from  a  point  close  to  the  railway  right 
under  the  aperture  in  the  steamer’s  bow,  to  a  distance  of  seventy  feet,  and  at  an  angle  with  the  line 
of  the  railway  equal  to  that  at  which  the  obelisk  had  to  leave  the  steamer’s  hold.  Capping  and 
cross-beams  were  placed  on  these  piles,  to  form  the  approach  to  the  disembarking  stage.  The  latter 
comprised  three  parallel  rowrs  of  piles,  twenty  feet  apart.  The  centre  row  had  double  the  number  of 
piles  in  the  outside  rows.  Over  each  pile  of  the  outside  rows  and  every  alternate  one  of  the  middle 
row  heavy  cross-timbers  were  placed  ;  and  on  these,  longitudinal  pieces  were  laid  to  form  the  bed  for 
the  channel  iron  tracks,  prolonged  into  the  steamer’s  hold.  This  arrangement  of  the  cross-timbers  was 
due  to  the  impossibility  of  purchasing  suitable  timber  long  enough  to  extend  across  the  whole  Avidth 
of  the  staging.  The  spaces  between  the  rows  could  not  be  reduced  in  width,  as  suitable  pontoons  of 
less  than  twenty  feet  beam  could  not  be  obtained.  The  staging  and  approach  were  given  the  same 
incline  as  the  platform  in  the  steamer’s  hold,  which  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  marine  railway. 

The  obelisk  having  been  slued  inside  of  the  steamer,  in  identically  the  same  manner  as  it  had  been 
slued  in  Alexandria,  to  the  angle  at  which  it  was  to  be  disembarked,  it  was  raised,  and  the  channel 
iron  tracks  and  cannon-balls  placed  under  it.  It  was  moved  outward  about  fifty  feet  by  a  pulling 
hydraulic  pump,  when,  to  hasten  the  disembarkation  a  fourfold  purchase  of  six-inch  rope  was  applied 
to  it.  The  hauling  part  of  the  purchase  was  taken  to  the  engine  of  an  ordinary  floating  pile-driver, 
secured  to  the  end  of  the  disembarking  stage,  as  shown  on  Plate  xx.  The  time  occupied  in  making 
the  aperture  in  the  steamer’s  bow,  building  the  stage  and  its  approach,  sluing  the  obelisk  in  the  hold, 
raising  it,  and  placing  the  track  under  it,  and  preparing  to  disembark  it,  was  two  weeks.  The  time 
occupied  in  disembarking  it  was  fifty  minutes. 

The  report  that  the  obelisk  was  to  be  disembarked  brought  doAvn  to  Staten  Island  a  crowd  of 
spectators,  who  occupied  every  available  spot  from  which  a  view  of  the  work  could  be  obtained. 

REMOVAL  FROM  STATEN  ISLAND  TO  MANHATTAN  ISLAND. 

On  September  13th  the  pontoons,  that  had  been  prepared  for  the  operation  of  lifting  the  obelisk 
from  the  staging,  were  placed  under  the  cross-timbers  and  between  the  rows  of  piling  at  low  tide. 
Water  was  let  into  them  to  prevent  their  rising  with  the  flood  tide.  On  the  following  day  they  were 
pumped  out.  As  the  tide  rose  they  naturally  rose  with  it  and  lifted  the  obelisk.  About  two  hours 
before  high-water  the  cross-timbers  were  clear  of  the  capping,  and  the  obelisk  was  once  more  afloat. 
Owing  to  lack  of  space  the  positions  of  the  pontoons  had  not  been  properly  adjusted.  It  was  found 
that  they  did  not  float  on  even  keels.  To  effect  this  adjustment  they  were  hauled  fifteen  feet  toward 
the  shore  ;  and  water  was  admitted  to  them  while  in  this  position,  so  as  to  land  the  cross-timbers 
sustaining  the  obelisk  on  the  capping  this  distance  from  their  original  positions.  This  operation 
consumed  the  short  interval  of  high-water,  and  nothing  more  was  attempted  until  the  16th.  The 
wind  on  the  i5th  was  such  as  to  cause  a  considerable  sea  in  the  bay,  in  Avhich  it  would  have  been 
imprudent  to  float  the  obelisk  on  the  pontoons.  The  delay  was  utilized  in  removing  the  approach  to 


THE  OBELISK  CROSSING  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  RAILROAD. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk.  41 

the  disembarking  stage,  and  clearing  a  passage  for  the  caissons  to  be  hauled  out  of  the  slip  directly 
astern,  instead  of  ahead  first  and  then  astern  as  had  been  intended. 

In  the  forenoon  of  September  16th,  every  thing  being  ready  and  the  weather  favorable,  the 
pontoons  were  pumped  out  at  low- water  and  adjusted  to  their  proper  position  under  the  obelisk.  The 
rising  tide  caused  them  to  gradually  raise  the  cross-timbers  clear  of  the  capping  on  the  piles  until  the 
weight  of  the  obelisk  had  been  transferred  from  the  stage.  At  high-water,  4  p.  m.,  they  were  hauled 
out  of  the  slip  into  the  bay,  bearing  the  obelisk  on  their  decks  (see  Plate  xxi).  The  next  half  hour 
was  spent  in  lashing  them  together  by  means  of  chains  passed  through  the  wells  in  each  and  under 
their  bottoms,  as  shown  in  Plate  xxi,  cross-section  through  obelisk  and  pontoons.  The  side  elevation  of 
obelisk  and  pontoons  on  this  plate  shows  the  pumps  that  had  been  placed  to  free  the  pontoons  of 
water,  and  the  method  of  securing  the  obelisk  by  shores  from  the  recesses  of  its  hieroglyphs  to  the 
decks  of  the  pontoons. 

A  landing-stage  had  been  prepared  for  the  obelisk  at  the  foot  of  Ninety-sixth  Street,  North 

River,  identically  the  same  in  principle  as  that  at  Staten  Island.  The  steamer  “  Manhattan,”  belonging 

to  the  Dock  Department  of  the  city,  was  in  readiness  to  tow  the  pontoons  from  Staten  Island.  The 
steamer  “  Rescue  ”  of  the  Coast  Wrecking  Company  was  in  attendance  to  escort  it.  She  was 
provided  with  powerful  pumping  machinery  and  the  necessary  flexible  hose  to  convey  steam  from  her 
boilers  to  the  pumps  on  the  pontoons.  And  in  order  to  provide  against  all  contingencies  she  towed 
one  of  the  Wrecking  Company’s  schooners,  also  provided  with  steam  boilers  and  pumps. 

The  time  of  high-water  at  the  foot  of  Ninety-sixth  Street  is  about  two  hours  later  than  at  Staten 
Island.  The  distance  is  twelve  miles.  At  4.55  p. m.  the  “Manhattan”  started  ahead  with  the  pontoons  in 
tow.  As  she  proceeded  up  the  bay,  tugs  and  steamers  diverged  from  their  courses  to  greet  the  strange 
object  with  vigorous  and  prolonged  blasts  of  their  steam-whistles  and  the  cheers  of  their  passengers  and 
crews.  We  reached  the  landing-stage  at  Ninety-sixth  Street  at  7.1 5  p.  m..  The  evening  was  very  dark 
and  it  seemed  as  if  it  would  be  impossible  to  adjust  the  pontoons  between  the  rows  of  piles.  After 
one  or  two  failures,  owing  to  the  swiftly  running  tide,  this  was  finally  accomplished.  Plate  xix  shows 

the  obelisk  on  the  pontoons  just  entering  the  landing-stage.  As  soon  as  it  was  in  position  the  valves 

of  the  pontoons  were  opened  to  admit  water  to  them,  and  in  a  few  minutes  the  obelisk  had  been 
finally  landed  on  Manhattan  Island.  As  it  settled  down  on  the  staging  the  piles  swayed,  owing  to 
their  great  height  ;  but  as  soon  as  the  whole  weight  was  on  them  they  remained  steady  and  the 
staging  became  stable. 


CROSSING  THE  HUDSON  RIVER  RAILWAY. 

The  Hudson  River  Railway  tracks  skirt  the  river  bank  at  the  point  where  the  obelisk  was  landed  ; 
passenger  trains  pass  at  very  frequent  intervals,  the  longest  time  between  trains  being  an  hour 
and  a  half  about  noon.  To  have  blocked  the  road  at  this  point  for  more  than  two  or  three  hours 
would  have  involved  serious  loss  and  much  serious  inconvenience  to  travellers.  Preparations  for 
transferring  the  obelisk  from  the  landing-stage  across  the  track  to  the  roadway  of  Ninety-sixth  Street, 
comprised  the  placing  of  heavy  timbers  across  the  street  and  others  at  right  angles  to  them  for  the 
channel  iron  tracks  to  rest  on,  and  adjusting  these  to  a  uniform  grade.  The  frequent  passage  of 
trains  and  the  rugged  surface  of  the  unpaved  street  delayed  this  work  until  September  2  5th.  The 
temporary  bridge  across  the  railway  tracks  had  beea^  prepared  with  care,  every  piece  hewn  and  cut  to 
the  proper  size,  marked,  and  its  position  well  understood  by  the  workmen.  Strong  anchors  had 
been  sunk  deep  down  into  the  rip-rap  of  the  street,  and  made  secure  by  chain-cable  backing  to  large 
iron  bolts  let  into  holes  drilled  in  the  solid  rock  on  the  south  side  of  the  street.  The  pulling  purchase 
was  rove  and  overhauled  ;  the  hauling  part  was  led  to  the  drum  of  the  engine  of  a  floating  pile-driver 
moored  to  the  wharf  adjacent  to  the  landing-stage.  Nothing  that  could  be  thought  of  that  would 


42 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

facilitate  and  hasten  the  crossing  was  neglected.  Orders  had  been  given  by  the  railway  officials  to  stop 
all  trains  at  1 1  a.  m.  Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  last  train  that  was  allowed  by,  the 
temporary  bridge  was  thrown  across  the  track  ;  in  one  hour  and  twenty  minutes  subsequently  the 
obelisk  was  resting  on  the  roadway  of  Ninety-sixth  Street  and  the  track  was  entirely  clear  of 
obstruction.  The  freight  train  seen  in  Plate  xxii  was  delayed  twenty-five  minutes.  The  regular 
passenger  trains  were  not  delayed  at  all. 

THE  LAND  TRANSPORT. 

The  landing-stage  had  necessarily  been  built  at  an  angle  with  the  direction  of  Ninety-sixth  Street, 
a  wharf  at  the  foot  of  that  street  preventing  its  construction  in  any  other  way.  The  first  operation 
after  having  moved  the  obelisk  across  the  Hudson  River  Railway  was  that  of  sluing  it  to  the  direction 
of  its  route.  This  was  done  in  identically  the  same  manner  as  it  was  slued  when  embarked  and 
disembarked.  The  route  that  was  followed  from  this  point  to  the  site  in  the  Central  Park  is  shown  on 
Plate  xxiii :  Eastward  through  Ninety-sixth  Street  to  the  West  Boulevard;  southward  through  the  West 
Boulevard  to  Eighty-sixth  Street  ;  eastward  through  Eighty-sixth  Street  to  the  Eighth  Avenue  entrance 
of  the  sunken  road  across  the  park  ;  eastward  through  this  sunken  road  to  Fifth  Avenue  ;  southward 
through  Fifth  Avenue  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  gate  facing  Eighty-second  Street ;  then  westward 
through  the  park  to  the  site.  Notwithstanding  its  numerous  turns,  this  route  was  the  best  one  that 
could  be  followed,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  more  uniform  grades  and  the  condition  of  the  streets.  The 
agfcrrerate  distance  is  ten  thousand  nine  hundred  and  five  feet*  and  the  aggregate  vertical  lift  from  the 
level  of  the  landing-stage  to  that  of  the  axis  of  the  trunnions  of  the  turning  structure  was  two  hundred 
and  thirty  feet.  This  lift  is  not,  however,  the  difference  of  elevation  above  water-level,  which  is 

one  hundred  and  forty-seven  feet.  Eighty-three  feet  of  the  lift  was  due  to  the  up  and  down  grades 

of  the  streets,  as  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  profiles  on  Plate  xxiii. 

The  apparatus  used  for  moving  the  obelisk  across  the  railway,  and  invariably  up  to  the  time  it 
reached  the  roadway  of  Ninety-sixth  Street,  is  illustrated  on  the  accompanying  drawing,  which  is  a  sec¬ 
tion  through  it,  showing  the  cross-timbers  ( A )  that  were  placed  on  the  ground  to  distribute  the  weight 

over  a  large  area,  the  track  timbers  (B)  on  which  the  lower  iron  channel  tracks  (C)  were  placed  and 

adjusted,  the  cannon-balls  (D)  and  the  upper  iron  channels  ( E )  on  which  the  obelisk  rested.  The 
great  advantage  of  substituting  iron  channels  and  cannon-balls  for  the  ordinary  wheels,  axles,  and 
tracks,  was  in  diminishing  the  friction  to  a  minimum  and  increasing  the  resistance  of  the  rollers  to  a 
maximum.  There  was,  however,  one  difficulty  experienced  with  this  method  that  could  not  be  over¬ 
come  at  moderate  cost.  The  bottom  of  iron  channels  of  ordinary  dimensions  was  found  to  be 

insufficiently  thick  to  resist  the  pressure,  and  the  iron  channels  were  literally  split  into  two  angle  irons 
by  the  cannon-balls.  To  remedy  this  defect  three-quarter-inch  flat  iron  plates  were  riveted  to  the 
bottom  of  the  iron  channels,  but  even  this  was  found  to  be  insufficient.  Every  effort  was  made  to 
procure  iron  channels  of  the  required  size  with  thicker  bottoms,  but  none  could  be  found  nor  could 
any  be  made  unless  machinery  was  made  expressly  to  roll  them.  This  was  out  of  the  question. 

It  became  necessary,  therefore,  to  change  the  method  of  moving  the  obelisk.  Nothing  offered 
so  many  advantages  as  the  ordinary  cradle,  rollers  and  track  of  a  marine  railway,  which  were  substituted 
for  the  iron  channels  and  cannon-balls.  The  idea  first  suggested  itself  to  me  in  Alexandria,  during 
the  embarkation  of  the  obelisk,  when  the  iron  channels  also  split.  The  change  was  determined  on 
at  Staten  Island,  during  the  disembarkation,  when  it  was  found  that  riveting  flat  irons  on  the  back 

of  the  iron  channels  was  not  effective  to  prevent  the  splitting. 

The  system  in  use  on  marine  railways  and  adopted  for  the  land  transport  of  the  obelisk  is 
illustrated  on  Plate  xxiv.  It  comprised  a  cradle  ( G )  a  ways  (W)  and  rollers  (B).  The  cradle  is 


ELATE  XXIII 


ROUTE  OF  THE  ODELISfC. 


43 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

formed  of  two  parallel  beams,  long  enough  to  contain  the  obelisk  and  engine,  about  eighty  feet,  held 
together  with  through  bolts,  (I)  and  held  apart  by  wooden  struts,  not  shown  on  the  drawing.  Suitable 
fastenings  were  secured  to  the  forward  end  of  the  cradle  to  hook  or  shackle  the  movable  purchase 
block  on.  The  lower  faces  of  the  cradle  beams  and  upper  faces  of  the  ways  beams  were  grooved 
through  the  middle  and  shod  on  each  side  of  the  groove  with  flat  irons  (. H ).  The  ways  beams  were 
kept  independent  of  each  other,  to  facilitate  shifting  them  along  the  route  after  the  obelisk  had  passed 
over  them.  The  rollers  were  grouped  in  “  boxes  ”  of  the  form  shown  on  the  accompanying  figure. 
The  side  pieces  ( P )  were  two-inch  plank,  twelve  inches  deep  and  six  feet  long,  held  together  by 
wooden  struts  (S)  having  shoulders  on  the  inside  and  keys  through  the  ends.  Iron  thimbles  ( T) 

were  let  into  the  plank,  to  reduce  the  friction  of  the  ends  of  the  rollers  ( R ).  These  rollers 

were  cast  with  a  flange  around  the  middle,  that  fitted  into  the  grooves  of  the  cradle  and  ways 

beams  and  acted  as  a  guide.  The  motive  power  of  an  ordinary  marine  railway  is  stationary. 

That  of  the  obelisk  railway  was  a  pile-driver  engine  fastened  to  the  forward  end  of  the  cradle  and 
moving  with  it  and,  therefore,  with  the  obelisk.  It  is  evident  that  the  rollers  would  travel  over 
half  the  distance  advanced  by  the  obelisk  and  cradle,  and  that  the  ways  were  stationary.  To  have 
laid  continuous  ways  from  the  river  to  the  park  would  have  been  a  useless  expense.  Six  double 
lengths  of  ways  beams  and  one  and  a  half  double  lengths  of  roller  boxes  were  provided.  Gangs  of 
men  were  employed  grading  the  track  ahead  of  the  obelisk  by  placing  cross-timbers  and  crib-work 
for  the  ways  beams  to  lie  on,  others  moving  the  timbers  and  other  material  ahead  for  the  grading, 
others  sinking  anchors  for  the  stationary  purchase  block  to  be  shackled  to,  and  picked  men  were 
employed  placing  the  ways  beams  and  adjusting  them  to  the  exact  grade  on  which  the  next  advance 
of  the  obelisk  was  to  be  made. 

The  preparations  for  the  first  advance  lasted  until  September  30th.  Rainy  weather,  difficulty  in 
finding  suitable  men,  and  other  causes  delayed  the  work,  and  the  obelisk  did  not  reach  the  West 

Boulevard  until  October  27th.  The  distance  from  the  starting-point,  near  the  railway  to  the  West 

Boulevard  is  twelve  hundred  feet ;  the  difference  of  level  is  sixty  feet,  the  grade  being  about  one 
in  twenty.  For  hauling  the  cradle  with  the  obelisk  and  engine  on  it  up  this  steep  grade  a  fourfold 
purchase  was  applied  to  it.  Six-inch  manilla  rope  was  used  for  the  fall.  The  stationary  block  of  the 
purchase  was  shackled  to  a  length  of  bower  chain-cable  belonging  to  the  “  Dessoug,”  which  served  as  a 
pennant,  the  other  end  of  the  cable  having  been  fastened  to  an  anchor  sunk  twelve  feet  into  the  road¬ 
way  of  the  street.  The  hauling  part  of  the  fall  was  taken  to  the  drum  of  the  engine  on  the  cradle. 

The  traction  to  be  overcome  averaged  about  thirty-eight  tons — that  is,  the  strain  on  the  purchase  was 
equal  to  a  lift  of  thirty-eight  tons  before  the  inertia,  the  tendency  down  the  incline,  and  the  friction 
could  be  overcome.  To  keep  the  cradle  from  descending  in  case  the  rope  or  any  thing  connected 
with  the  pulling  purchase  should  have  given  way,  men  were  stationed  in  the  rear  of  the  obelisk  with 
large  iron  wedges,  that  were  held  close  against  the  rollers.  The  least  retrogade  movement  would  have 
caught  the  points  of  the  wedges  ;  the  weight  of  the  large  end  of  the  obelisk  would,  in  this  manner, 
have  been  utilized  as  a  brake. 

A  change  of  grade  and  turn  of  ninety  degrees  were  the  next  things  to  be  accomplished  after 
reaching  the  West  Boulevard.  The  former  occupied  a  few  hours.  The  hydraulic  pumps  were  placed 
under  the  ways  in  spaces  left  vacant  in  the  blocking,  which  was  removed  as  soon  as  the  wTeight  had 
been  suspended  on  the  pumps.  The  lower  end  of  the  obelisk  was  thus  lifted,  whilst  the  upper  end 
was  lowered  until  the  new  grade  had  been  reached. 

Instead  of  lowering  the  ways  on  blocking  they  were  lowered  on  large  timbers  placed  diagonally 
across  the  street  so  as  to  -form  a  plane  on  which  the  obelisk  and  its  railway  could  be  slued.  Strips 
of  half  inch  iron  were  placed  between  the  ways  timbers  and  diagonal  timbers,  to  reduce  friction. 
Powerful  purchases  operating  in  opposite  directions  were  applied  to  the  ends  of  the  obelisk  and  its 


44  Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

railway,  and  the  whole  slued  around  by  November  3d,  after  six  days  and  nights  of  tedious  and 
unsatisfactory  work. 

It  was  evident  that  a  more  expeditious  method  of  making  the  remaining  eleven  turns  and  part 
turns  necessary  in  order  to  reach  the  site  must  be  designed.  The  London  obelisk  was  not  turned 
or  moved  overland  at  all.  The  Paris  obelisk  had  been  turned  by  placing  it  on  a  pivoted  cradle,  an 
expensive  and  for  my  purposes  an  impracticable  system.  The  turning  apparatus  shown  on  Plate  xxiv 
I  designed  and  arranged  in  time  for  the  next  turn  from  the  West  Boulevard  into  Eighty-sixth  Street. 
The  distance  between  these  points,  two  thousand  six  hundred  and  fifty  feet,  with  two  changes  of 
grade,  was  made  in  eight  days.  The  ways  beams  were  laid  directly  over  the  new  turning  apparatus, 
which  was  reached  on  November  1 5th.  Twenty-two  hours  were  occupied  in  preparing  the  blocking 
and  four  hours  in  effecting  the  turn. 

The  apparatus  comprises  two  circles  of  iron  channels,  with  cannon-balls  between,  and  a  hundred- 
ton  hydraulic  pump  under  the  large  end  of  the  obelisk  as  a  pivot,  and  two  sections  of  iron  channels 
bent  to  arcs  of  different  radii  under  the  middle  and  the  small  end.  The  upper  channels  of  the  two 
latter  were  long  enough  to  project  a  little  beyond  the  ways  beams  ;  the  lower  ones  covered  an  angle 
of  ninety  degrees.  A  purchase  was  applied  to  the  small  end  of  the  obelisk,  and  the  power  necessary 
to  effect  the  turn  was  equivalent  to  that  required  for  lifting  only  two  tons.  The  end  of  the  railway 
bearing  the  engine  was  allowed  to  slide  on  a  beam  shod  with  iron. 

From  the  intersection  of  Eighty-sixth  Street  with  the  West  Boulevard  to  the  Eighth  Avenue 
entrance  of  Transverse  Road  No.  3,  the  distance  is  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet,  with 
ascending  grades  of  one  in  thirty-seven  and  a  half,  and  one  in  ninety.  The  entrance  to  Transverse 
Road  No.  3  was  reached  on  November  25th.  An  examination  of  the  plan  and  profile  of  this 
transverse  road  on  Plate  xxiii  will  indicate,  in  a  measure,  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome  in  order 
to  transport  the  obelisk  through  it.  The  distance  from  Eighth  to  Fifth  Avenue  is  two  thousand  nine 
hundred  feet,  with  a  descending  grade  of  one  in  sixty,  followed  by  an  ascending  grade  of  one  in  fifty-six, 
a  level,  then  a  descending  grade,  of  one  in  twenty-six,  and  concluding  with  an  ascending  grade  of  one 
in  fifty.  Besides  these  changes  of  grade,  there  were  eight  partial  turns  in  both  directions  to  be  made, 
aggregating  one  hundred  and  seventy-three  degrees  of  arc.  To  add  to  the  difficulties  of  this  part  of 
the  work,  intensely  cold  weather  alternated  with  heavy  falls  of  snow,  and  the  picked  men  gave  out 
one  by  one  from  attacks  of  rheumatism  and  other  effects  of  exposure.  The  time  occupied  in  moving 
the  obelisk  through  the  transverse  road  was  nineteen  days.  Work  was  carried  on  continuously 
night  and  day  by  two  gangs,  relieving  each  other  at  six  o’clock,  morning  and  evening.  I  made  it 
a  point  to  spend  six  hours  of  each  day  and  five  hours  of  each  night  personally  superintending  the 
work.  And  in  order  to  give  encouragement  and  hasten  it,  a  bonus  was  paid  for  accomplishing  a 
distance  greater  than  that  regarded  by  the  foreman  as  a  fair  day’s  work  under  the  circumstances  at 
the  time. 

The  turn  southward  down  Fifth  Avenue  was  made  on  December  16th.  The  distance  to  the 
Eighty-second  Street  entrance  to  the  park  is  seven  hundred  and  ninety  feet,  or  a  uniform  down  grade 
of  one  to  one  hundred  and  thirty-one.  The  obelisk  reached  the  turning-point  at  the  intersection  of 
Fifth  Avenue  with  Eighty -second  Street  on  December  1 8th,  and  was  turned  on  December  2 2d  to  the 
direction  in  which  it  was  to  be  hauled  over  the  trestle  to  the  site.  The  greatest  distance  covered  in 
one  day  was  six  hundred  feet  on  November  nth  in  the  West  Boulevard. 

The  trestle  extended  a  distance  of  eight  hundred  and  ninety  feet  from  the  roadway  of  Fifth 
Avenue  to  the  site.  It  had  a  uniform  ascending  grade  of  one  in  fourteen  nearly.  Plates  xxiii, 
xxiv,  and  xxvii  fully  illustrate  this  ordinary  form  of  trestle,  which  was  composed  of  timber  bents, 
braced  together  in  the  customary  manner,  standing  on  mudsills,  the  tops  connected  with  exceptionally 
large  stringer-pieces  which  formed  the  ways  timbers  of  the  obelisk  railway.  The  highest  bent  was 


> 

X 

X 

<D 

(3 

Q. 


TRESTLE  IN  CENTRAL  PARK  N.Y. 


. 


. 


•  . 

* 


45 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

forty-eight  feet.  The  sizes  of  the  timber  for  verticals,  cross-pieces,  and  stringer-pieces  varied  from 
twelve  to  sixteen  inches  square,  according  to  the  height  and  other  circumstances.  It  was  commenced 
about  October  ist,  and  completed  just  as  the  obelisk  reached  the  lower  end  during  the  last  week  in 
December.  Several  sections  of  the  “  Dessoug’s  ”  bower  cable  were  shackled  together  and  extended 
along  the  entire  length  of  the  trestle  ;  one  end  was  secured  to  a  large  steel  pin  that  had  been  let  into 
a  hole  drilled  in  the  rock  a  short  distance  west  of  the  site.  This  served  as  a  pennant  for  the  pulling 
purchase,  the  stationary  block  of  which  was  shackled  into  the  links  of  the  cable,  and  shifted  farther 
along  when  the  obelisk  cradle  had  been  pulled  up  to  it. 

A  heavy  fall  of  snow  on  December  28th,  followed  by  intense  cold,  delayed  the  operation  of  hauling 
the  obelisk  up  the  trestle  several  days,  and  it  did  not  reach  its  destination  until  January  5,  1881. 
On  that  day  the  centre  of  gravity  was  placed  directly  over  the  axis  of  the  pedestal  and  foundation, 
and  its  long  and  tedious  land  journey  was  at  an  end.  It  had  travelled  10,905  feet  in  112  days,  or 
at  the  rate  of  about  ninety-seven  feet  a  day. 

SUSPENDING  THE  OBELISK  IN  THE  TURNING  STRUCTURE. 

/ 

The  cradle  and  engine  were  released  by  raising  and  suspending  the  obelisk  on  hydraulic  pumps 
in  the  manner  illustrated  on  Plate  xxiv,  lower  figure.  Double  bents  had  been  placed  in  the  trestle, 
on  each  side  of  the  turning  structure,  for  the  hydraulic  pumps  to  stand  on  that  were  to  raise  the  ends 
of  the  obelisk,  and  extra  single  bents  were  placed  on  the  pedestal  for  other  pumps  to  stand  on  to  aid 
in  lifting  and  supporting  it.  The  aggregate  lifting  power  of  the  seven  hydraulic  pumps  used  for  this 
operation  was  four  hundred  and  sixty  tons,  about  double  the  weight  of  the  obelisk.  The  apparatus 
used  for  applying  two  of  the  pumps  to  the  large  end  was  an  iron  yoke,  shown  on  the  lower  figure  in 
Plate  xxiv,  consisting  of  two  wrought-iron  beams,  eight  inches  wide,  six  inches  deep,  and  nine  feet 
long,  placed  underneath  and  projecting  on  each  side  of  the  obelisk  far  enough  to  allow  of  two  steel 
bolts,  each  three  inches  in  diameter,  to  pass  through  the  ends  of  each  beam.  The  upper  ends  of  the 
bolts  passed  through  iron  plates  two  feet  long,  six  inches  thick,  and  eight  inches  wide.  The  pistons 
of  the  pumps  acted  against  the  lower  sides  of  these  plates,  which  were  adjustable  to  the  requisite  height 
by  means  of  nuts  screwed  on  both  ends  of  the  bolts. 

Every  thing  having  been  cleared  away  between  the  lower  side  of  the  obelisk  and  the  stringer-pieces 
of  the  trestle,  the  trunnions  were  hoisted  by  a  pair  of  shears  on  one  side  and  a  boon  derrick  on  the 
other,  and  carefully  adjusted  to  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  obelisk.  Plate  xxviii,  enlarged  section 
through  the  centre  of  gravity,  illustrates  the  method  of  clasping  the  obelisk  in  the  trunnion  plates. 
Strips  of  very  soft  wood  were  placed  against  the  stone  to  prevent  injury  by  the  iron  ;  the  plates  P 
were  then  slid  into  position,  between  the  lips  E  and  the  wood ;  the  bolts  H  were  rove  through  the 
lugs  in  the  trunnion  plates,  and  nuts  screwed  over  the  threads  in  both  ends  as  tight  as  possible.  The 
truss  T,  the  same  as  that  used  in  Alexandria,  was  then  adjusted,  as  shown  on  Plates  xxvii  and  xxviii, 
to  support  the  ends  of  the  obelisk.  This  work  was  completed  on  January  1 5th,  and  on  that  day  the 
obelisk  was  lowered  by  the  hydraulic  pumps  until  the  trunnions  rested  in  the  pillow-blocks  and  the 
entire  weight  had  been  transferred  from  the  trestle  to  the  turning  structure.  All  supports  were  then 
removed  from  under  the  ends  in  order  to  test  the  turning  apparatus  and  to  determine  whether  or  not 
the  obelisk  had  been  suspended  exactly  at  its  centre  of  gravity.  The  structure  gave  no  evidence  of 
weakness,  and  the  obelisk  turned  easily  in  either  direction. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  had  invariably  placed  the  obelisks  they  erected  directly  on  the  pedestals. 
The  Romans  had  invariably  mounted  those  they  removed  on  metal  supports,  leaving  a  space  between 
the  obelisk  and  pedestal.  My  desire  was  to  give  the  obelisk  the  greatest  possible  stability,  while 
restoring  it  and  its  accessories  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  exact  conditions  that  existed  in  Alexandria 
when  I  took  possession  of  them.  With  this  in  view  it  was  decided  to  mount  the  obelisk  directly  on 


4<5 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

the  pedestal,  and  place  the  metal  supports  under  the  corners.  The  bottom  was  imperfect  from  injuries 
received  before  I  took  charge  of  it,  and  not  over  two  thirds  of  its  area  would  come  in  contact  with 
the  pedestal.  To  give  it  a  bearing  surface  equal  to  that  which  it  would  have  if  the  corners  had  not 
been  broken  off,  flanges  had  been  cast  on  the  bottoms  of  the  crabs  nearly  equal  to  the  difference  of 
the  area  of  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk  as  it  is  and  as  it  was  originally.  Recesses  R,  Plate  xxviii, 
end  view  of  base,  were  cut  into  the  rounded  part  of  the  bottom  for  the  upper  bearing  on  the  crabs. 
These  had  been  reproduced  from  plaster  casts  of  the  originals,  perfected  by  Mr.  Theodore  Baur, 
sculptor,  with  great  skill  and  feeling.  The  new  crabs  were  cast  at  my  expense  in  the  Brooklyn  Navy 
Yard,  Commodore  G.  H.  Cooper,  U.  S.  N.,  Commandant,  by  permission  of  the  Honorable  Nathan  Goff, 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  under  the  immediate  and  careful  supervision  of  Chief  Engineer  Charles  H. 
Loring.  Artistic  moulders  could  not  be  found  to  complete  this  work.  It  was  done  mainly  by  the 
ordinary  brass-moulders  of  the  Navy  Yard,  to  whose  skill  the  results  bear  ample  testimony.  The 
metal  is  a  bronze  as  nearly  as  possible  the  same  as  that  of  the  crabs  cast  by  the  Romans  nineteen 
centuries  ago.  The  average  weight  of  the  new  crabs  is  nine  hundred  and  twenty-two  pounds 
each. 

The  decision  to  place  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk  directly  in  contact  with  the  pedestal  necessarily 
involved  a  change  of  plan  from  the  reverse  method  of  raising  it  in  Alexandria.  The  new  plan  is  fully 
illustrated  on  Plate  xxviii.  Plaster  casts  were  made  of  the  sides  of  the  obelisk  close  to  the  bottom. 
From  these  casts  moulds  were  made  that  would  allow  for  shrinkage  of  the  molten  metal,  so  that  the 
clamps  would  fit  exactly  into  the  hieroglyphs  and  around  the  broken  corners.  Lugs  (Z)  were  cast  on 
the  outside  faces  of  the  clamps  for  the  trunnion  tie-rods  (C)  to  pass  through.  The  ends  were  also 
provided  with  holes  for  steel  bolts  (/)  to  pass  through  from  one  to  the  other.  The  weight  of  each  was 
five  thousand  seven  hundred  pounds. 

The  clamps  were  hoisted  and  placed  in  position  on  January  18th.  The  bolts  (7)  passing  through 
the  ends  were  provided  with  threads  over  which  nuts  were  screwed  to  bind  them  tightly  against  the 
stone.  It  is  evident  that  the  metal  that  fitted  into  the  recesses  of  the  hieroglyphs  and  around  the 
corners  of  the  obelisk  would  prevent  the  clamps  from  sliding  toward  the  trunnions  when  the  tie-rods 
had  been  placed  in  position  and  tightened.  For  the  same  reason  the  obelisk  could  not  slip  downward 
after  it  had  been  turned  to  a  vertical  position,  until  the  tie-rods  (C)  had  been  lengthened  by  revolving 
the  turn-buckles  (R). 

The  work  of  demolishing  the  trestle  had  been  proceeding  rapidly,  and  by  January  20th  all  the 
bents,  except  the  double  one,  shown  on  Plate  xxvii,  under  the  forward  end  of  the  obelisk,  had  been 
removed. 

The  composition  clamps  had  given  the  large  end  of  the  obelisk  preponderance  enough  to  overcome 
the  friction  of  the  trunnions  in  the  pillow-blocks  while  the  obelisk  was  horizontal.  Tackles  were  led 

from  both  ends  to  suitable  places  to  insure  perfect  control  ;  and  by  the  forenoon  of  January  20th  the 

obelisk  was  ready  to  be  placed  vertically  on  its  pedestal.  Noon  of  January  2 2d  had  previously  been 
fixed  on  for  the  operation.  To  thoroughly  test  every  thing  and  be  reassured  that  there  would  be  no 
unforeseen  difficulty,  an  experimental  turn  was  made  at  1 1  o’clock  p.  m.  of  the  20th.  The  obelisk  was 
then  replaced  in  a  horizontal  position,  and  remained  suspended  on  the  turning  structure  through  the 
violent  gale  of  January  21st,  that  left  its  mark  on  so  many  things  in  and  around  New  York. 

RE-ERECTING  THE  OBELISK. 

NOON  JANUARY  22,  l88l. 

Long  before  the  hour  fixed  on  for  turning  the  obelisk,  spectators  had  occupied  every  available 
space  in  the  park  and  its  vicinity  from  which  a  good  view  could  be  obtained.  In  spite  of  the 

piercing  cold  wind  and  thick  bed  of  snow  that  lay  on  the  ground,  ladies  formed  at  least  half  of  the 


IRON  CHANNELS  AND  MARINE  RAILWAY 


. 


■ 


' 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


47 


ten  thousand  persons  estimated  as  the  number  who  witnessed  the  operation.  A  cordon  of  park- 
keepers  encircled  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  site,  and  with  difficulty  kept  the  crowd  from  encroaching 
within  the  space  reserved  for  workmen.  A  platform  had  been  erected  on  the  north  side  of  this 
space  for  the  accommodation  of  distinguished  persons  and  officials.  A  battalion  of  sailors  and  marines 
from  the  Navy  Yard,  Brooklyn,  under  the  command  of  Lieutenant-Commander  W.  H.  Whiting,  U. 
S.  Navy,  and  Captain  Bishop,  U.  S.  Marine  Corps,  had  been  ordered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
to  act  as  a  guard  of  honor  for  the  occasion.  They  arrived  at  the  park  headed  by  the  Marine  Band 
at  a  little  before  noon,  and  were  paraded  in  double  line  on  the  north  side  of  the  site,  enclosing  the 
platform  on  three  sides.  His  Honor,  W.  R.  Grace,  the  Mayor,  the  Aldermen,  and  other  officers  of 
the  city,  many  of  the  civil  and  judicial  officers  of  the  State,  very  many  civil,  judicial,  army  and 
navy  officers  of  the  United  States,  nearly  all  of  the  foreign  consuls  residing  in  New  York,  a  large 
delegation  of  the  members  of  the  Grand  Lodge,  almost  all  the  members  of  Anglo-Saxon  Lodge  in  a 
body,  and  a  large  number  of  distinguished  citizens  and  professional  men,  accompanied  by  their  wives 
and  families,  having  positions  upon  the  platform,  occupied  nearly  every  inch  of  available  space.  Five 
thousand  cards  had  been  issued  as  a  souvenir  of  the  event,  bearing  on  one  side  a  picture  of  the 
obelisk  as  it  stood  in  Alexandria,  and  on  the  other  an  announcement  that  it  would  be  placed  on 
its  pedestal  in  the  Central  Park  at  noon  of  January  2 2d. 

A  few  minutes  before  noon  the  Hon.  Wm.  M.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  the  Honorable  Nathan 
Goff,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  Mr.  William  Henry  Hurlbert,  Editor  of  the  New  York  World,  drove 
up  to  the  foot  of  Graywacke  Knoll,  dismounted,  and  took  positions  reserved  for  them  on  the  platform. 
The  men  stationed  at  the  fall  *of  the  down-haul  tackle  from  the  base,  and  those  stationed  at  the  fall 
of  the  lowering  tackle  from  the  top  of  the  obelisk,  had  been  previously  instructed  to  haul  down  and 
slack  away,  respectively,  when  I  held  my  hand  up,  and  as  long  as  it  was  held  up,  and  to  stop  as 
soon  as  I  lowered  my  hand.  After  a  moment’s  conversation  with  Mr.  Evarts  the  signal  was  given; 
and  the  obelisk  slowly  turned,  the  spectators  preserving  a  silence  that  was  almost  unnatural.  When 
the  obelisk  had  changed  from  the  horizontal  to  an  angle  of  about  forty-five  degrees,  I  gave  the 
signal  to  hold  it  in  that  position  while  Mr.  Edward  Bierstadt  made  a  photograph  for  which  he  had 
made  preparations.  This  seemed  to  break  the  spell  that  bound  the  spectators  in  silence,  and  when 
the  signal  was  given  to  continue  the  turning  there  arose  a  loud  cheer  which  was  prolonged  until  the 
shaft  stood  erect.  It  is  something  to  have  witnessed  the  manipulation  of  a  mass  weighing  nearly 
two  hundred  and  twenty  tons  changing  its  position  majestically,  yet  as  easily  and  steadily  as  if  it 
were  without  weight.  It  was  to  me  an  inexpressible  relief  to  feel  that  my  work  was  complete,  and 
that  no  accident  or  incident  had  happened  that  would  make  my  countrymen  regret  that  I  had  been 
intrusted  with  the  work  of  removing  and  re-erecting  in  their  metropolis  one  of  the  most  famous 
monuments  of  the  Old  World  and  the  most  ancient  and  interesting  relic  of  the  past  on  the  American 
Continent.  Only  five  minutes  elapsed  from  the  first  signal  to  the  time  the  obelisk  was  vertical.  As 
it  reached  this  position  the  Marine  Band  played  the  national  airs  while  the  battalion  presented  arms. 
Congratulations  followed,  and  the  spectators  very  soon  dispersed. 

After  the  grounds  had  been  cleared  the  hydraulic  pumps  [A,  Plate  xxviii)  were  placed  in  position 
under  the  clamps  ( B )  on  each  corner  of  the  pedestal.  The  obelisk  was  once  more  supended  on  them, 
the  bolts  of  the  trunnions  were  slackened,  the  turn-buckles  of  the  tie-rods  revolved,  and  the  obelisk 
lowered  by  the  pumps  and  turn-buckles  until  it  rested  on  the  pedestal.  Adjusting  it  so  as  to  have  the 
axis  correspond  with  that  of  the  shaft,  heating  the  surfaces  that  were  to  come  in  contact  so  as  to  fit  them 
for  a  thin  layer  of  cement,  and  spreading  this  cement  uniformly  in  the  severe  cold  that  prevailed 
during  that  afternoon,  delayed  the  work  until  eight  o’clock  in  the  evening,  at  which  hour  the  obelisk 
was  finally  landed  on  the  pedestal  and  released  from  the  turning  structure.  Fifteen  months  had  elapsed 
from  the  day  the  work  of  removal  began  in  Alexandria.  In  this  time  it  had  travelled  five  thousand 


48 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

three  hundred  and  eighty  miles  by  water,  and  eleven  thousand  five  hundred  and  twenty  feet  by  land  ; 
had  been  lowered  thirty-nine  feet,  and  lifted  two  hundred  and  thirty  feet. 

Removing  the  machinery,  demolishing  the  foundation  walls  and  workshops,  and  clearing  away  the 
debris  from  Graywacke  Knoll,  were  all  accomplished  within  ten  days  after  the  obelisk  was  re-erected. 
Placing  and  securing  the  crabs  in  position  was  a  tedious  process,  owing  to  continued  freezing  weather, 
and  occupied  us  ten  days  longer.  To  give  the  upper  part  of  the  metal  a  uniform  bearing,  molten  lead 
was  poured  into  the  vacant  spaces  and  caulked  in  around  the  edges.  To  render  their  removal  impossible 
without  destroying  the  pedestal,  molten  lead  was  poured  into  the  mortices  around  the  dowels  projecting 
downward  from  the  lower  side  of  the  flanges,  through  holes  bored  in  them  for  the  purpose.  The  crabs 
are  not  ornaments  only  ;  they  serve  to  give  the  bottom  of  the  obelisk  a  bearing  surface  on  the 

pedestal  nearly  equal  to  the  area  of  its  base  if  the  corners  had  not  been  broken  off.  To  pull  the 
obelisk  over  without  first  raising  it  clear  of  the  pedestal  would  require  a  force  applied  to  its  centre  of 
gravity  equivalent  to  that  required  for  lifting  seventy-eight  tons.  The  maximum  pressure  that  could 
be  exerted  by  wind  blowing  with  the  force  of  a  hurricane  on  the  obelisk  would  be  equivalent  to  that 
required  to  lift  fifteen  tons.  This  pressure  would  be  exerted  uniformly  over  the  whole  of  one  face  or 
its  equivalent.  The  factor  of  stability  is  therefore  very  great.  It  would  require  an  exceptionally 
severe  earthquake,  one  that  would  leave  very  few  buildings  in  New  York  standing,  to  render  the 

obelisk  unstable. 

THE  PRESENTATION  CEREMONIES. 

The  ceremony  of  formally  presenting  the  obelisk  to  New  York  City  was  fixed  for  February 
2 2d,  and  the  use  of  the  grand  hall  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  near  by  was  tendered  by  the  trustees 
for  the  purpose.  A  committee,  of  which  the  Honorable  Henry  G.  Stebbins  was  Chairman,  Messrs. 
Algernon  S.  Sullivan,  John  Taylor  Johnston,  Robert  Hewitt,  Jr.,  and  Stephen  A.  Walker  were 
members,  had  perfected  all  the  arrangements  and  issued  tickets  of  admission  to  the  museum. 

The  following  detailed  account  of  the  ceremony  and  incidents  connected  therewith  is  reproduced 
from  the  New  York  World  of  February  23d.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  make  a  better  record 
of  the  facts.  It  would  be  embarrassing  for  me  to  relate  such  as  have  a  personal  bearing,  and  it 
seems  as  if  the  record  would  be  incomplete  without  them. 

The  tide  in  the  direction  of  Central  Park  and  the  obelisk  set  in  at  noon,  and  at  2  o’clock  had  flooded  the 

flat  ground  between  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  and  Greywacke  Knoll,  upon  which  the  obelisk  stands,  and 

all  the  walks  and  drives  adjacent  thereto,  with  people.  Not  a  train  on  either  of  the  elevated  roads,  not  a  car 
on  the  several  street  railways,  but  had  gone  up  town  after  noon  loaded  down  with  passengers.  At  a  rough 
estimate  there  were  in  the  Central  Park  at  2  P.  M.  20,000  people.  It  had  been  announced  that  the  interesting 
ceremonies  connected  with  the  formal  presentation  to  the  city,  through  the  United  States  government,  of  the 
Khedive’s  splendid  gift  would  take  place  within  the  shelter  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  and  that 
admittance  to  the  museum  could  only  be  obtained  by  tickets.  Nevertheless  an  unlimited  number  of  people,  a 
throng  beyond  the  capacity  of  any  ten  halls  in  New  York  combined,  went  to  the  park,  bent  upon  hearing  the 
address  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  on  being  close  eye-witnesses  of  all  the  interesting  details  of  the  presentation. 
This  fact  is  pleasant,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  beyond  peradventure  that  the  people  of  New  York  are  not  insensible 
of  the  value  and  magnitude  of  Egypt’s  gift  to  America;  but  the  immediate  results  were  inevitable.  To  have 
opened  the  doors  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  spacious  as  is  that  structure,  to  the  throng  which  surged  about 
it,  would  have  been  to  produce  a  crush  in  which  nobody  could  have  lived.  Early  comers  had,  however,  taken 
possession  of  the  top  steps  leading  to  the  two  doors  of  the  museum,  and  behind  them,  stretching  away  to  the 
north  and  south,  were  solid  lines  of  impatient  citizens  who  blocked  the  broad  stairways  and  the  asphalt  walks, 
and  rendered  it  a  matter  of  extreme  difficulty  for  invited  guests  to  extricate  themselves  from  their  carriages  and 
gain  a  foothold  anywhere  in  front  of  the  museum  building. 

At  2.10  o’clock,  a  platoon  of  park  policemen  having  meantime  been  pressed  into  service,  the  doors  leading  to 
the  museum  were  opened  and  the  holders  of  tickets  were  admitted.  It  was  the  crush  of  a  favorite  opera  night 
ten  times  intensified.  Presently,  however,  as  the  hopelessness  of  obtaining  an  entrance  began  to  dawn  upon  the 
unticketed,  the  ways  broadened  and  the  invited  company  was  ushered  into  the  hall.  At  the  east  end  of  the 
main  floor  a  platform  capable  of  seating  sixty  or  seventy  persons  had  been  erected.  Facing  this  platform  were 


TRANSPORTING  THE  OBELISK 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


49 


a  number  of  chairs  reserved  for  the  holders  of  special  tickets.  The  intervening  space  between  the  reserved  rows 
and  the  four  walls  of  the  building  was  quickly  filled.  It  was  a  thoroughly  amiable  throng,  however,  which  had 
taken  possession  of  the  building,  and  understanding  that  accommodations  were  of  necessity  limited,  contented 
itself  in  good-humor.  The  scene  through  any  one  of  the  great  windows  in  the  front  of  the  building  would  at 
this  moment  have  done  good  to  the  gracious  heart  of  his  generous  Highness  the  ex-Khedive  Ismail.  Clear  cut 
against  a  cloudless  sky  rose  the  graceful  lines  of  the  monolith.  Thousands  of  people,  made  very  small  by  contrast 
with  the  towering  shaft,  crowded  around  its  base  and  pressed  one  another  on  the  sloping  hill.  Closer  at  hand, 
between  the  throng  of  devotees  at  the  base  of  the  monument  and  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  was  a  mass  of 
carriages.  Inside  of  the  museum  the  only  unoccupied  space  at  2.30  o’clock  was  the  platform.  The  north  gallery 
had  been  taken  possession  of  by  Theodore  Thomas’  New  York  chorus,  and  the  south  gallery,  divided  by  a 
partition,  gave  seats  to  the  one  hundred  common-school  boys  who  were  to  receive  copies  of  the  medal  struck  in 
honor  of  the  occasion  by  the  Numismatic  Society,  and  to  a  number  of  ladies  whose  avowed  interest  in  the 
obelisk,  as  well  as  in  the  Museum  of  Art,  entitled  them  to  special  privileges. 

At  a  little  after  half  past  2  P.  M.  Mr.  Evarts,  leaning  upon  the  arm  of  Mr.  John  Taylor  Johnston,  ascended 
the  platform.  His  appearance  was  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  applause,  which  had  not  ceased  when  all  the 
gentlemen  who  followed  him  had  found  seats.  Immediately  behind  Secretary  Evarts  and  Mr.  Johnston  were 
Chancellor  Howard  Crosby  and  Chief-Justice  Daly,  the  former  wearing  the  black  silk  faced  with  violet  velvet  robe 
of  his  office.  The  platform  soon  became  fully  occupied.  His  Honor,  W.  R.  Grace,  the  Mayor,  who  was  to 
receive  the  gift,  was  seated  next  to  Secretary  Evarts,  who  was  to  present  it. 

Mr.  John  Taylor  Johnston,  the  President  of  the  museum,  presided.  Mr.  Evarts  was  given  a  seat  at  his 
right.  President  Barnard,  with  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe  at  his  side,  sat  on  Mr.  Johnston’s  left.  Dr.  Crosby, 
at  the  request  of  Mr.  Johnston,  began  the  ceremonies  with  prayer,  as  follows: 

“  Almighty  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  Who  hast  given  to  us  a  goodly  heritage  in  this  land  of  liberty  and 
peace,  and  hast  afforded  us  opportunity  and  means  for  growth  in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  we  desire  to  lift  up 

our  hearts  to  Thee  with  humble  and  grateful  acknowledgment  of  Thy  mercies  and  to  ask  for  Thy  continued 

favor.  We  thank  Thee  for  the  prosperity  of  our  beloved  city,  for  its  health  and  thrift,  for  its  wealth  and 
enterprise,  and  for  its  institutions  of  charity  and  education.  We  thank  Thee  for  the  centres  of  refined  culture 
Thou  hast  enabled  our  citizens  to  establish  by  which  to  elevate  and  enlighten  the  public  mind,  and  now  this  day 
we  do  give  Thee  our  hearty  thanks  that  Thou  hast  permitted  the  enterprise  which  connects  us  with  an  extreme 
antiquity  to  be  brought  to  a  successful  termination  ;  and  we  pray  Thee,  most  gracious  Lord,  that  those  who 
have  been  especially  instrumental  in  forwarding  this  work  may  be  rewarded  by  seeing  its  utility,  both  as  an 
ornament  and  a  teacher  among  us,  adorning  the  city,  while  it  contrasts  our  light  and  privileges  with  the 

darkness  and  tyranny  of  the  older  time.  We  beseech  Thee,  Almighty  God,  to  accept  our  petition  for  Jesus’ 

sake.  Amen.” 

Next  the  hymn,  written  expressly  for  the  occasion  by  Mr.  Richard  Watson  Gilder,  was  finely  sung  by  Mr. 
Thomas’  trained  choir  in  the  north  gallery,  which  was  conducted  by  Mr.  George  F.  Bristow  and  Mr.  William  G. 
Dietrich.  The  hymn,  which  had  been  adapted  by  Mr.  Thomas  to  the  music  of  Luther’s  hymn,  “  Ein’  Feste 
Burg,”  is  as  follows : 


Great  God,  to  Whom  since  time  began 
The  world  has  prayed  and  striven ; 
Maker  of  stars,  and  earth,  and  man — 
To  Thee  our  praise  is  given  ! 

Here,  by  this  ancient  Sign 
Of  Thine  own  Light  Divine, 

We  lift  to  Thee  our  eyes, 

Thou  Dweller  of  the  skies — 
Hear  us,  O  God  in  heaven ! 


In  myriad  forms,  by  myriad  names, 

Men  seek  to  bind  and  mould  Thee  ; 
But  Thou  dost  melt,  like  wax  in  flames, 
The  cords  that  would  enfold  Thee. 
Who  madest  life  and  light, 
Bring’st  morning  after  night, 

Who  all  things  did’st  create — 

No  majesty,  nor  state, 

Nor  word,  nor  world  can  hold  Thee. 


Older  than  Nilus’  mighty  flood 
Into  the  mid-sea  pouring, 

Or  than  the  sea,  Thou  God  hast  stood — 
Thou  God  Whom  we  ’re  adoring. 

Waters  and  stormy  blasts 

Haste  when  Thou  bid’st  them  haste  ; 

Silent,  and  hid,  and  still, 

Thou  sendest  good  and  ill : 

Thy  ways  are  past  exploring. 


Great  God,  to  Whom  since  time  began 
The  world  has  prayed  and  striven  ; 
Maker  of  stars,  and  earth,  and  man — 
To  Thee  our  praise  is  given! 

Of  suns  Thou  art  the  Sun, 
Eternal,  Holy  One: 

Who  can  us  help  save  Thou  ? 

To  Thee  alone,  alone  we  bow — 
O  hear  us,  God  in  heaven  ! 


50 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

An  introductory  address  by  Mr.  Henry  G.  Stebbins,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Arrangements,  was 
to  have  followed  the  singing  of  the  hymn,  but  Mr.  Stebbins  was  not  able,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  letter, 
to  be  present : 


“  2  West  Sixteenth  Street,  February  21st. 

“  A.  S.  SULLIVAN,  Esq. 

“  Dear  Sir  :  I  had  hoped  and  expected  until  to-day  to  perform  the  duties  assigned  to  me  by  the  committee 
in  charge  of  the  arrangements  in  the  formal  presentation  of  the  obelisk  in  Central  Park  to-morrow.  I  find  myself, 
however,  prevented  by  a  sudden  and  severe  cold,  which  forbids  the  carrying  out  of  my  purposes.  I  regret  this 
the  more  because  I  have  taken  a  special  interest  in  the  bringing  here  and  in  the  location  of  an  artistic  memorial 
of  an  ancient  civilization,  which  now  fitly  looks  on  the  beginning  of  what  I  trust  will  become  a  great  museum 
of  art.  This  museum  is  destined  to  supply  a  permanent  home  for  the  trophies  from  all  countries  and  of  all 
periods  in  which  art  has  flourished  and  left  its  memorials.  I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  to  express  my  conviction 
that  the  selection  of  the  site  for  the  obelisk  will  be  more  approved  as  its  harmony  with  the  surroundings  and 
the  security  of  its  setting  become  more  and  more  generally  recognized.  Liberality,  enterprise,  official  aid,  and 
private  assistance  have  added  a  graceful  and  suggestive  monument  to  our  great  out-door  gallery.  I  hope  that 
the  successful  placing  of  this  interesting  monument  in  such  a  relation  to  the  future  national  gallery  of  America 
will  encourage  our  wealthy  citizens  to  enlarge  the  Art  Museum  and  to  fill  it  with  all  those  treasures  which  so 
greatly  increase  the  attractions  of  the  metropolis. 

“  Yours,  very  sincerely, 

“  H.  G.  STEBBINS.” 


Mr.  John  Taylor  Johnston  then  introduced  Mr.  Evarts,  who  was  received  with  hearty  applause,  and  who 
in  the  following  address  formally  presented  the  obelisk  to  the  city : 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  I  responded  with  pleasure  to  the  call  of  the  committee  to  take 
such  part  in  the  installation  of  the  obelisk  as  they  in  their  judgment  thought  suitable.  My  relation  to  the 
occasion  and  my  service  before  you  are  naturally  and  necessarily  mainly  official  and  ceremonial,  for  I  have  had 
no  personal  share  in  the  first  construction  of  this  obelisk,  nor  in  any  of  its  movements  since;  and  in  the  great 
transaction  so  creditable  to  ourselves  and  our  age  by  which  it  has  been  acquired,  by  which  it  has  been 
transported,  and  by  which  it  has  been  placed  on  this  site,  I  have  had  only  an  official  and  ceremonial  share.  I 
think  it  is  something  like  twelve  years  ago  that  one  of  our  distinguished  fellow-citizens,  the  head  of  one  of  the 
principal  journals  of  the  country,  being  in  the  Mediterranean  on  the  occasion  of  the  opening  of  the  Suez  Canal, 
and  being  in  the  company  of  the  Khedive  of  Egypt,  learned  from  him  that  there  was  no  insurmountable 
obstacle  in  Egyptian  mystery  or  Egyptian  pride  against  the  obelisk’s  being  sent  across  the  ocean,  if  only  an  obelisk 
could  be  supposed  capable  of  making  the  voyage.  This  idea,  cherished  for  some  years,  at  last  began  to  put 
itself  in  the  course  of  execution.  In  the  first  year,  I  think,  of  my  administration  of  the  Department  of  State 
some  preliminary  considerations  on  the  subject  were  taken  between  that  gentleman  and  myself ;  but  it  was  not 
until  the  visit  of  our  excellent  and  faithful  Consul-General  in  Egypt,  Mr.  Farman,  to  this  country  in  the  summer 
of  1878,  that  full  information  was  gained  here  of  the  conditions  necessary  and  the  prospect  of  success,  and 
that  full  instructions  were  given  to  him  on  the  part  of  the  government  as  to  his  action  in  reaching  the  desired 
end.  From  that  step  the  stages  were  easy  and  rapid,  and  in  May,  1879,  Mr.  Farman  informed  the  State 
Department  that  the  consent  of  the  then  Khedive  had  been  given  to  the  transaction,  and  your  distinguished 
fellow-citizen,  Mr.  Stebbins,  was  acquainted  with  the  success  of  the  measure  to  which  from  the  beginning  he  had 
lent  his  name  and  influence.  Thus  it  seemed  as  if  every  difficulty  was  overcome  so  far  as  the  good-will  of 
the  Khedive  was  concerned,  and  the  first  step  of  our  government  for  the  transfer  of  the  prize;  but  by  one  of 
the  vicissitudes  of  government  which  abound  in  that  land  the  Khedive  suddenly  abdicated,  leaving  his  gift 
incomplete  and  leaving  the  country  and  the  obelisk  behind  him,  and  there  was  somewhat  of  solicitude  whether 
the  incomplete  gift  would  be  assured  to  us  by  the  approval  and  ratification  of  his  successor.  But  the  delicate 
and  careful  and  faithful  efforts  of  Mr.  Farman  were  at  last  crowned  with  success,  notwithstanding  some 
obstacles  on  the  part  of  jealous  governments  which  thought  it  a  shame  that  their  capital  should  not  hold  all 
the  obelisks,  even  if  Egypt  should  be  despoiled  of  them.  When  we  arrived  at  that  conclusion  we  went  in  search 
of  a  man  of  courage,  skill,  and  knowledge  of  the  sea,  competent  in  the  judgment  of  others  and  confident  in 
his  own  ability,  and  we  were  fortunate  in  finding  such  an  one  in  an  accomplished  officer  of  our  navy,  Lieutenant- 
Commander  Gorringe,  a  man  wholly  fitted  for  the  achievement  of  bringing  the  obelisk  hither.  And  when  I 
asked  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  grant  him  leave  of  absence,  and  desired  to  know  whether  his  previous 
record  had  been  such  that  this  grand  work,  with  all  its  risks  and  peril,  could  be  entrusted  to  him,  I  got  but 
one  answer,  and  that  was  that  whatever  Gorringe  undertook  to  do  he  would  accomplish.  Whether  that  was 
as  well-deserved  a  reputation  then  as  1  supposed  it  to  have  been  I  know  not,  but  I  think  that  the  wider  circle 
of  observers  and  the  generous  testimony  of  his  fellow-citizens  will  now  give  warrant,  that  whatever  Lieutenant- 


OBELISK  CROSSING  THE  MAIN  DRIVE  IN  CENTRAL  PARK. 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


5i 


Commander  Gorringe  undertakes  to  do  he  will  accomplish.  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe  reached  Alexandria 
on  the  2 1st  of  October,  1879.  He  procured  a  vessel  and  began  the  opening  of  her  sides,  or  her  bow  or  her 
stern  or  whatever  was  most  useful,  in  order  that  the  obelisk  might  be  trundled  into  it  on  cannon-balls.  He 
left  with  it  about  June,  1880,  and  met  with  a  disaster  at  sea  that  was  enough  to  wreck  the  vessel  had  he 
not  been  provided  with  a  shaft  to  replace  the  broken  one.  He  reached  here  some  time  about  the  25th  of 
July,  and  then  the  labor  of  the  land  passage  began,  which  was  incomparably  greater  than  that  of  the  transport 
across  the  Atlantic.  By  slow  stages  the  obelisk  traversed  its  way  along  our  crowded  thoroughfares,  and  finally 
reached  a  position  to  be  elevated  on  its  present  pedestal  on  the  22d  of  January  last.  The  foundation  had  been 
prepared  previously,  and  the  laying  of  its  corner-stone  had  been  accompanied  by  imposing  ceremonies  under  the 
charge  of  the  Masonic  institutions  of  this  country,  that  institution  finding  most  interesting  records  to  show 
that  the  Free  and  Accepted  Order  of  Masons  existed  in  Egypt  at  least  1,800  years  ago.  Now  the 
communication  of  these  facts  leaves  only  one  thing  to  be  added,  and  that  is  that  an  obelisk  cannot  work  its 
own  passage  across  the  Atlantic.  Somebody  must  pay  for  it,  and  such  an  one  had  been  found  in  your  very 
public-spirited  fellow-citizen,  a  man  furnished  with  abundant  means  to  carry  out  whatever  he  should  undertake 
in  a  financial  direction.  When  he  was  first  approached  on  the  subject,  Mr.  Wm.  H.  Vanderbilt  made  the 
immediate  and  generous  response,  that  he  would  bear  the  expense  of  the  undertaking,  desiring  his  name  not  to 
be  mentioned  until  a  time  should  come  when  it  could  properly  be  announced.  His  presence  was  expected  here 
to-day,  but  we  are  deprived  of  it  by  some  casual  infirmity  which  detains  him  from  us.  These  facts,  the 
voyage  of  this  obelisk  and  the  provision  for  the  expense  thereof,  show,  I  think,  a  munificence  unexampled, 
great  advance  in  opportunities  and  means  of  such  transportation,  and  great  skill,  energy,  and  economy.  The 
expense  of  the  transfer  has  been  a  little  over  $100,000,  and  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe  has  contributed  his 
services  as  his  part  of  the  great  work. 

“  This  is  not  the  first  obelisk  that  has  left  its  home  in  Egypt  to  seek  new  scenes ;  but  never  before 
perhaps  has  the  transfer  been  as  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  Egyptain  government  as  now.  These  obelisks, 
great  and  triumphant  structures,  having  for  their  inscription  nothing  but  the  official  pomp  of  their  founders, 
mark  a  culmination  of  the  power  and  glory  of  Egypt,  and  every  conqueror  has  seemed  to  think  that  the  final 
trophy  of  Egypt’s  subjection  and  the  proud  pre-eminence  of  his  own  nation  could  be  shown  only  by  taking  an 
obelisk — the  chief  mark  of  Egyptian  pomp  and  pride — to  grace  the  capital  of  the  conquering  nation.  The  first  was 
taken  by  a  conquering  Assyrian  monarch,  of  great  mark  in  his  time  and  remembered  through  all  the  ages  since, 
known  better  to  us  and  more  easily  by  the  Greek  name  of  Sardanapaius.  He  took  an  obelisk  to  Nineveh  when 
that  empire  was  the  mistress  of  the  world,  and  that  obelisk  made  the  first  great  voyage  like  this  which  our  obelisk 
has  taken.  Although  there  are  no  records  of  the  precise  route  which  the  Assyrian  took  for  his  obelisk,  yet  it 
is  very  apparent  that  it  was  taken  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  then  down  the  Red  Sea  into  the  Indian  Ocean,  and 
then  through  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates,  and  thence  to  Nineveh,  beyond  the  navigation 
of  the  river.  This  route  must  have  included  some  1,500  miles  of  water  transport.  We  are  somewhat  at  a  loss 
to  understand  how  the  methods  and  vehicle  for  such  a  transportation  could  have  existed  at  that  age.  We  have 
but  little  record  of  that ;  but  as  the  obelisk  undoubtedly  got  to  Nineveh  and  could  not  get  across  the  desert 
by  land,  it  must  have  made  this  circuitous  route  of  1,500  miles.  The  next  power  which  assumed  to  take 
obelisks  from  Egypt  was  the  Roman  State  in  the  times  of  the  emperors,  and  they  took  as  many  as  fifteen, 
one  after  the  other,  and  twelve  of  them  now  remain  in  Italy.  This  brings  us  to  the  period  close  upon  the 
Christian  era  and  to  the  time  of  the  first  famous  Caesar,  Julius,  and  his  successors,  when  Egypt,  subject  and 
abject,  yielded  up  the  treasures  of  its  art  and  of  its  faith  to  the  conquering  spoiler.  Next  comes  the  Eastern 
Empire,  having  Byzantium  as  its  capital,  and  it,  too,  demanded  contribution  of  the  wealth  of  Egypt, — the 
contribution  of  obelisks  to  mark  the  domination  of  the  city  of  Constantine, — and  Byzantium,  now  Constanti¬ 
nople,  still  contains  two  obelisks  thus  taken.  This  closes  the  list  of  transportations  in  ancient  times.  All 
subsequent  removals  of  obelisks  have  been  within  this  century.  The  French  and  British,  as  all  know,  made 
Egypt  a  battle  field,  and  the  famous  naval  battles  of  the  Nile  and  the  famous  battles  in  which  Napoleon  and 
Abercrombie  measured  their  strength  are  familiar  to  us  all.  Egypt  recognized  her  obligations  to  England,  and 
offered  an  obelisk  to  England — then  the  great  power  of  the  earth, — but  its  very  transportation — the  expense 
thereof — seemed  so  serious  that  the  gift  remained  lying  on  the  sand  at  Alexandria,  and  no  attempt  was  made 
for  its  transfer  until  1877.  This  was  completed  in  1878.  British  ingenuity  in  the  architecture  of  naval  vessels 
and  in  navigation  and  in  engineering  had  only  taught  Britons  that  the  obelisk  could  not  be  carried  in  the  hold 
of  a  ship,  and  the  experiment  was  made  of  building  a  vehicle  around  the  obelisk  that  could  float  it  and  float 
itself,  and  could  be  towed  by  steamer  so  arranged  as  to  give  the  crew  an  opportunity  of  saving  themselves,  so 
that  when  it  came  to  a  choice  between  the  sinking  of  the  obelisk  and  the  sinking  of  the  crew  the  steamer  could 
be  cut  loose  from  the  tow.  The  experiment  was  not  such  as  to  encourage  imitation  by  us  even  if  Commander 
Gorringe  had  not  had  that  faith  in  a  ship  which  had  been  his  cradle  from  his  youth,  and  had  not  thought  that 
if  a  ship  could  carry  all  the  men  and  all  the  armor  and  all  the  cargoes  that  modern  civilization  burdens  it 
with,  it  could  carry  the  obelisk.  The  caisson,  or  whatever  it  was  called,  in  which  the  English  obelisk  was 
inclosed  was  abandoned  in  mid-ocean,  and  the  experiment,  delayed  for  fifty  years  from  the  time  the  gift  was 
made  till  the  courage  and  skill  were  found  to  undertake  it,  stood  disappointed  in  its  accomplishment.  Some 


52 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

adventurers  of  the  sea,  picking  up  the  abandoned  obelisk,  towed  it  in  and  afterward  libelled  it  in  the  Admiralty 
Court  and  received  .£5,000  for  executing  what  the  original  arrangement  had  failed  to  accomplish.  The  French 
obelisk  was  given  by  Mehemet  Ali  to  Charles  X,  though  Napoleon  had  long  before  planned  the  taking  of  one 
to  Paris.  In  1831,  just  fifty  years  ago,  Louis  Philippe  undertook  the  transportation,  and  placed  the  obelisk  where 
so  many  good  Americans  have  seen  it,  in  Paris,  in  Place  de  la  Concorde.  It  is  indisputable  that  the  expenses  of 
this  transfer  across  the  Mediterranean,  or  around  by  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  whichever  way  it  went,  were  nearly 
$500,000,  or  about  five  times  as  much  as  our  enterprise,  under  the  execution  of  Commander  Gorringe,  cost. 

“Our  obelisk  is  here.  It  is  here — and  now,  Mr.  Mayor,  I  have  the  honor  to  transfer  to  the  keeping  of  the  city 
of  New  York  this  great  and  ancient  monument.  May  it  stand  upon  its  site  a  perpetual  monument,  an  emblem 

of  Egypt,  a  witness  and  teacher  of  that  most  ancient  civilization,  to  be  cherished  by  this  great  modern  city  in 

the  present  and  the  future,  as  a  pledge  and  an  evidence  of  the  constant  friendship  of  the  ex-Khedive  Ismail,  of 
his  son  Tewfik  Pacha  and  of  the  Egyptian  government  to  the  government  and  people  of  the  United  States. 

What  is  our  obelisk?  How  came  it  here?  What  shall  it  teach  us  and  what  shall  we  say  to  it  while  it  remains 

with  us?  This  obelisk  was  one  of  two  at  the  Temple  of  Heliopolis,  a  few  miles  from  Cairo,  and  was  one  only 

of  the  numerous  structures  of  this  character  that  the  great  King  Thothmes  III  raised  in  glory  to  himself  and 

in  honor  to  his  god.  Great  temples,  great  monuments  in  other  forms  as  well  as  in  obelisks,  marked  his  reign. 

He  was  the  greatest  king  that  Egypt  had  ever  seen.  He  had  united  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  into  one 

kingdom.  He  had  conquered  other  nations  and  extended  the  Egyptian  frontiers  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
He  was  a  patron  of  the  arts,  a  lover  of  learning,  had  all  the  kingly  virtues,  was  full  of  devotion  to  religion, 
faithful  to  Egypt,  a  magnificent  king  and  conqueror.  He  was  of  the  age  that  saw  the  exodus  of  the  Hebrews 
from  Egypt.  He  was  of  the  age  in  which  Moses  was  born.  He  appears  in  the  long  line  of  history  with  the 
greatest  conquerors  of  the  world — with  Alexander,  with  Caesar,  with  Napoleon.  He  lived  in  a  stage  of  society 

at  a  period  in  the  world’s  advancement  when  the  gulf  between  the  king  and  the  people  was  vast,  and  in  the 

proportion  in  which  he  was  vast  and  magnificent  they  were  abject  and  poor.  This  obelisk,  then,  standing  there 
in  front  of  that  temple  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  saw  all  the  famous  men  of  other  countries  seeking  the  learning 
of  the  Egyptians  in  this  temple,  the  great  school  resorted  to  by  great  statesmen  and  philosophers  of  the  ancient 
world.  No  doubt,  passing  under  the  shadow  of  this  obelisk,  Moses  came  to  know  all  the  wisdom  of  the 

Egyptians.  In  this  same  temple  Solon  and  Thales  and  Plato  learned  the  wisdom  that  made  them  the 

benefactors  of  the  world.  Transferred  to  Alexandria  to  grace  the  triumph  and  illustrate  the  supremacy  of  the 
Caesars,  our  obelisk  witnessed  there  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean — in  the  great  city  founded  by  the  Greek 
who  carried  the  arms  of  Europe  to  the  Indus — the  rise,  fluctuation  and  fall  of  great  schools  of  philosophy,  the 
fortunes  of  a  mighty  mart  of  commerce,  and  the  final  disappearance  of  Graeco-Roman  civilization  under  the  flood 
of  Mahometan  conquest.  Cleopatra  got  more  credit  for  this  needle,  or  rather  this  needle  has  got  more  credit 
from  Cleopatra  than  the  fact  justifies.  It  was  not  erected  in  front  of  the  temple  or  palace  of  the  Caesars  until 
six  years  after  her  death,  and  whatever  the  glories  were  that  Cleopatra  and  Caesar  shared  together  in  the 
Egyptian  splendor  of  those  days  at  Alexandria,  this  obelisk  and  its  contemplation  were  not  among  them.  Yet 
it  formed  a  part  of  Roman  splendor  and  domination  in  Egypt,  and  while  they  took  as  many  as  they  pleased, 
fortunately  this  was  left,  as  being  associated  with  Roman  glory  in  Alexandria,  in  front  of  the  palace  or  temple  of 
the  Caesars.  The  other  was  thrown  down,  but  this  one  stood  wherever  it  was  placed  from  the  time  it  was  so 
placed  until,  standing,  it  was  taken  down  to  be  removed.  This,  then,  is  the  genius  of  this  obelisk — the  faculty 
of  staying  where  it  was  put.  It  never  has  been  prostrated  by  time  or  casualty.  It  never  has  been  broken  by 
clumsiness  or  blundering.  It  never  has  been  out  of  good  hands.  First,  those  of  Thothmes  and  his  engineers; 
second,  of  the  Caesars  and  the  Roman  masters  of  mankind;  and,  third,  of  Mr.  Hurlbert  and  Mr.  Stebbins  and 
Commander  Gorringe  and  Mr.  Vanderbilt.  What,  then,  is  the  lesson,  what  the  teaching  that  this  obelisk  is  to 
give  us?  Hitherto,  in  ancient  times,  each  one  was  transferred  from  its  home  in  Egypt,  at  a  time  of  the  strength 
and  pride  of  the  nation  that  took  it,  as  spoil.  These  obelisks  have  looked  down  and  waited,  not  in  vain,  for  the 
same  strife,  for  the  same  ruin  which  they  had  witnessed  in  Egypt.  Rome,  mistress  of  the  world,  in  the  sight  of 
the  obelisks  planted  in  the  great  city,  was  taken  and  sacked  by  Northern  barbarians,  its  empire  dispersed,  its 
learning,  its  civilization  obscured,  its  power  as  an  empire  never  again  restored.  The  obelisks  of  Byzantium  saw 
the  last  Constantine  perish  under  the  tide  of  Asiatic  barbarism.  Assyria  within  our  obelisk’s  lifetime  has  fallen 
as  an  empire — by  successive  conquerors  has  been  trampled  in  the  dust.  Asia  still  holds  its  obelisks,  if  you  can 
only  find  them,  but  they  have  been  buried  in  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  which  has  hidden  them  from  all  modern 
explorers.  Sooner  or  later,  then,  in  the  experience  of  ancient  times,  the  obelisks  have  had  their  revenge,  if  they 
cherished  any  affection  for  Egypt  and  felt  any  humiliation  in  her  degradation  and  their  transportation.  If  these 
obelisks  could  only  tell  of  the  glories  in  which  they  have  assisted,  if  they  could  only  remember  all  they  saw  and 
only  narrate  all  they  remember,  what  teachers  they  would  be  !  How  they  would  smile  at  modern  strength  and 
glory  and  at  the  pride  of  one  hundred  or  one  thousand  years  as  indicating  strength  and  permanency  and 
endurance!  How  they  would  say,  whatever  else  may  be  the  forms  through  which  civilization  and  population, 
governments  and  power  of  nations  are  to  pass,  there  is  one  common  grave  of  ruin  in  which  they  are  all  to  be 
buried. 

“  Turning  to  modern  obelisks  we  see  what  has  happened  within  the  brief  time  in  which  one  of  them  for 


TURNING  THE  OBELISK 


53 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

half  a  century  has  stood  in  the  Place  de  la  Concorde.  In  this  fifty  years  it  has  seen  the  monarchy  followed  by 
the  empire,  and  that  empire  yield  to  the  republic.  But  observe  how  little  those  forms  of  government — how 
little  those  great  men  of  the  earth — are  in  the  action  of  modern  civilization.  How  has  France  been  humbled?  The 
pride  of  domination  and  dynasty  has  fallen,  but  France — greater,  richer,  freer,  more  noble  and  prosperous  than 
ever — stands  the  same,  and  this  obelisk  in  the  great  place  of  Paris  has  seen  only  those  little  perturbations  upon 
the  surface  without  one  stone  falling  from  another  in  the  great  structure  of  the  French  nation.  The  English 
obelisk  has  not  been  there  long  enough  to  gather  much  experience  about  the  prosperity  of  our  great  mother 
country.  It  has  so  far  witnessed  only  the  agitations  of  the  Irish  Land  League,  though  who  can  tell  what  those 
may  yet  portend  ?  While  we  all  feel  solicitude  and  sympathy  for  her  fate,  we  feel  that  as  a  matter  of  pride, 
next  to  ourselves,  the  mother  country  of  our  republic  should  bear  a  high  place  among  the  nations  of  the  world. 
But  you  will  say  at  once  that  in  England  any  transposition  of  force — of  stated  power — would  pass  for  little.  It 
has  been  a  long  time  since  the  institutions  of  England  depended  upon  its  monarchy,  and  it  has  been  a  long  time 
since  the  monarchy  has  formed  one  of  the  vital  institutions  of  the  country.  Now,  here — what  shall  we  say  of 
the  prospects  and  assurances  by  which  we  may  hope  in  our  system  of  society,  in  our  system  of  religion,  in  our 
system  of  government,  to  outlast  the  obelisk,  if  the  obelisk  is  to  wait  for  our  ruin  ?  At  the  very  time  that 
Thothmes  was  rearing  these  great  monuments  of  his  power,  a  feeble  Hebrew  infant,  doomed  to  death  from  his 
birth  in  expectation  of  the  race  becoming  too  formidable  and  too  much  oppressed,  uttered  a  feeble  cry  from  the 
bulrushes  when  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  disturbed  his  sleep,  and  Moses  has  come  here  long  before  this  obelisk  ; 
Moses,  the  greatest  law-giver  that  the  world  ever  saw — Moses  with  his  ten  commandments — is  in  possession  of 
the  churches,  and  of  the  schools,  and  of  the  literature,  and  of  the  morals  of  society.  Egypt  is  represented  not 
only  here  but  throughout  our  system  of  civilization  by  the  cry  of  the  infant  Moses,  heard  throughout  the  whole 
modern  world.  Twenty-two  years  after  this  obelisk  was  raised  at  Alexandria  by  the  Romans  to  mark  their 
perpetual  dominion,  there  was  born  in  the  neighboring  and  subject  province  of  Palestine  another  infant,  destined 
also  to  death  from  His  infancy — Christ  the  Saviour,  a  name  before  which  all  kings  and  rulers  and  conquerors,  all 
dynasties,  all  principalities  and  powers  have  fallen  in  obedience ;  and  before  this  obelisk  from  Alexandria  had 
reached  our  shores  we  had  heard  the  name  of  Christ,  and  the  religion  of  Christ  has  been  made  the  basis  of  our 
civilization,  of  our  national  strength,  of  our  national  permanence.  I  do  not  deny  that  we  may  see  slow  corruption. 
I  do  not  deny  the  possibility  of  popular  failure.  I  do  not  know  but  you  may  become  weary  of  well-doing, 
and  scoff  at  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  fall  away  from  the  name  of  Jesus.  Who  indeed  can  tell  what  our 
nation  will  do  if  any  such  perversity  is  possible  of  realization  ;  and  yet  this  obelisk  may  ask  us,  ‘  Can  you  expect 
to  flourish  forever  ?  Can  you  expect  wealth  to  accumulate  and  man  not  decay  ?  Can  you  think  that  the  soft 
folds  of  luxury  are  to  wrap  themselves  closer  and  closer  around  this  nation  and  the  pith  and  vigor  of  its  manhood 
know  no  decay?  Can  it  creep  over  you  and  yet  the  nation  know  no  decrepitude?’  These  are  questions  that 
may  be  answered  in  the  time  of  the  obelisk,  but  not  in  ours.” 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Evarts’  address,  Mayor  Grace,  who  was  seated  just  behind  President  Barnard,  arose 
to  respond  on  behalf  of  the  city,  and,  bowing  to  Mr.  Evarts  and  the  ladies  upon  the  platform,  said  : 

“Sir:  On  behalf  of  the  city  of  New  York  it  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  receive  from  the  Khedive  of 
Egypt,  through  the  kindness  of  very  public-spirited  gentlemen,  the  great  historical  monument  which  now  adorns 
our  Central  Park.  The  generosity  of  the  donor  is  extreme.  He  sends  us  to  be  placed  in  our  midst  a  most 
valued  and  valuable  monument  of  an  older  era,  as  if  to  remind  us  of  the  instability  of  nations,  of  our  own 
youth,  and  of  the  greatness  of  the  past.  The  civilization  in  the  midst  of  which  this  monument  was  constructed 
presents  a  most  perfect  contrast  to  that  of  our  day  and  country.  The  social  constitution  of  Egypt,  based  as  it 
was  upon  caste,  has  nothing  in  common  with  that  newer  notion  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  modern  state — 
absolute  equality  of  opportunity,  absolute  equality  before  the  law.  As  time  has  proved  the  enemy  of  the  old 
social  form  and  the  friend  of  the  new,  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  stability  which  was  wanting  to  the  one  may 
not  be  so  to  the  other.  Strangely  enough,  that  civilization  whose  bond  was  community  of  blood,  and  of  which 
the  city  was  the  parent  and  the  centre, — the  pre-Christian  civilization, — was  that  which  afforded  the  least  stability 
to  the  city,  while  that  which  regards  universal  liberty  as  the  groundwork  of  society,  and  holds  the  city  as  only 
a  constituent  part  of  a  larger  political  whole,  is  the  most  favorable  to  municipal  development.  As  our  city  grows 
in  its  liberties  it  continues  in  the  true  spirit  of  conservatism  to  save  all  of  value  in  the  past,  and  so  a  historical 
monument  which  will  serve  to  bind  us  to  antiquity  as  does  this  great  obelisk — which  has  been  safely  brought 
here  only  by  the  exercise  of  the  greatest  ingenuity  and  engineering  skill — is  something  of  which  the  city  of  New 
York  should  be,  and,  I  assure  you,  will  be  proud.” 

Mr.  A.  S.  Sullivan  then  rose  to  present  the  medals  struck  in  commemoration  of  the  occasion.  “  On  behalf  of 
the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society  of  New  York,”  he  said,  “  I  have  now  to  fulfil  a  commission 
without  which  our  proceedings  would  almost  fail  to  express  in  rounded  proportions  the  significance,  the  utility, 
and  the  beauty  of  these  stately  ceremonies.  Yonder  cuts  the  Western  sky  a  memorial  stone  which  has  hitherto 
been  a  beacon  under  an  Eastern  sky.  While,  as  I  speak,  its  shadow,  from  the  sinking  sun,  moves  toward  us,  it 
seems  to  people  this  museum,  from  the  dim  past  of  the  Orient,  with  weird  myths  and  mysteries  and  splendid 
legends.  That  monolith  was  an  emblem  of  Deity.  The  kings  and  priests  who  set  it  up  have  been  mummies 
for  thirty  centuries,  and  their  sun-worship  is  giving  place  to  the  adoration  of  the  *  Lux  Benigna  et  Divina  ’  of  the 


54 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

true  revelation.  Their  monument  has  been  moved  to  the  new  continent  to  be  an  ever-speaking  witness  to  the 
continuity  and  unity  of  human  thought.  It  is  the  fittest  of  all  possible  sentinels  at  the  portal  of  our  future 
great  archaeological  temple.  An  appreciative  token  of  the  liberal  financial  donor,  Mr.  William  H.  Vanderbilt, 
and  of  the  skilful  and  indefatigable  engineer,  Lieutenant-Commander  H.  H.  Gorringe,  U.  S.  N.,  to  whose  mediary 
agency  we  owe  this  souvenir  of  Egyptian  methods,  has  been  stamped  upon  medals  to  commemorate  this  occasion 
medalically,  artistically,  and  historically.  The  first  impressions  from  the  die  in  silver,  in  the  name  of  the 
distinguished  society  already  named,  and  in  view  of  this  assembly,  I  now  deliver  to  Mr.  Vanderbilt  and  to 
Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe,  whose  great  services  to  the  cause  of  art  and  historic  enlightenment  are  hereby 
recognized  by  all  the  educational  circles  of  New  York  and  America.” 

As  he  spoke  Mr.  Sullivan  removed  from  its  paper  folds  a  long  flat  box  of  handsome  workmanship,  which  he 
handed  unopened  to  Commander  Gorringe  amid  the  applause  of  the  audience.  Commander  Gorringe,  hearing 
cries  of  his  name  from  all  parts  of  the  hall,  signified  by  a  gesture  to  Mr.  Johnston  his  disinclination  to  speak. 
Mr.  Sullivan,  saying  that  the  absence  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Vanderbilt  was  deeply  regretted  by  him  and,  he  had  no 
doubt,  by  all  present,  also  handed  a  box,  similar  to  the  one  presented  to  Commander  Gorringe,  to  a  gentleman 
who  took  charge  of  it  for  Mr.  Vanderbilt.  The  medals  contained  in  these  boxes  were  similar  in  character  to 
those  which  were  immediately  afterward  presented  to  the  boys  from  the  public  schools,  wrought  only  in  more 
precious  metal.  Mr.  Sullivan  then  addressing  the  hundred  boys,  who  had  risen  to  their  feet  and  whose  bright 
faces  were  turned  attentively  toward  him,  continued  : 

“  But  there  remains  the  closing  and  not  the  least  important  feature  in  the  design  of  this  celebration.  I 
turn  to  the  gallery  above  us  and  I  see  one  hundred  faces  of  as  many  bright  boys  of  New  York  and  who 
represent  the  one  hundred  thousand  children  who  crowd  her  public  schools.  My  lads,  you  are  welcome 
participants  in  our  ceremonies.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  New  York  that  the  children  have 
been  formally  given  a  station  in  great  public  movements,  but  I  hope  it  will  not  be  so  hereafter.  We  wish  you 
to  grow  up  with  the  feeling  that  the  monuments,  the  museums,  the  schools,  the  libraries,  the  statues,  the  public 
institutions,  the  churches,  the  parks,  and  all  the  agencies  that  look  to  the  improvement  and  the  refinement  and 
the  health  of  the  people,  to  the  honor  and  virtue  and  morals  of  the  city,  to  its  public  spirit  and  its  civic  pride, 
to  its  good  repute  and  its  magnificence,  are  a  trust  which  you  are  soon  to  assume.  They  are  now  to  influence  and 
educate  you,  and  we  beg  you  to  cherish  them  continuously.  Let  your  book-studies  be  associated  with  all  these 
sentiments.  Meditate  upon  them  with  love.  Determine  to  take  a  part  in  the  community  for  its  good,  and  that 
New  York  shall  be  better  for  your  having  lived  in  it.  Revere  such  benefactors  of  mankind  as  dear  old  Peter 
Cooper,  and  ever  remember  that  ‘  a  good  name  is  better  than  riches.’  In  the  hope  that  this  day  shall  be  a  great 
teaching  day  to  all  the  children  of  New  York,  and  lift  them  forward  on  an  ascending  plane,  I  address  you 
as  the  representatives  of  all  of  them.  I  also  present  to  you  a  medal  which,  as  a  talisman,  shall  ever  remind  you 
of  the  beauty  and  the  duty  of  good  citizenship.  The  motto  upon  the  medal  is  taken  from  a  Latin  poet,  and 
is  ‘  Discipulus  est  priori  posterior  dies,'  and  may  be  translated,  ‘To-day  must  learn  from  yesterday.’  I  entreat  you 
to  observe  in  your  lives  the  lessons,  the  wisdom,  and  the  examples  of  experience. 

As  the  crowded  condition  of  the  building  rendered  it  impracticable  for  the  boys  to  come  down  to  the 
platform  to  receive  their  medals  Mr.  Sullivan  handed  them  over  to  the  care  of  a  teacher  appointed  by 
President  Walker,  of  the  Board  of  Education,  to  receive  and  distribute  them.  Each  medal  was  encased  in  heavy 
paper  made  into  the  shape  of  a  little  book,  which  books  contained  upon  their  outside  covers  a  copy  of  the 
inscription  on  the  pyramidion  of  the  obelisk  and  the  seal  of  the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological 
Society  in  the  name  of  which  the  medals  were  presented,  together  with  the  following  inscription  :  “  Presented  to 

- on  behalf  of  the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society  of  the  City  of  New  York,  by  Robert 

Hewitt,  Jr.”  The  inner  covers  of  the  books  contained  the  following  memoranda: 

“  The  object  of  this  medal  is  to  commemorate  the  erection  of  the  Egyptian  obelisk  in  the  Central  Park  as 
having  an  educational  meaning  for  the  people,  and  to  recall  to  the  present  and  future  generations  that  the 
history  of  the  ancients  may  be  studied  to  profitable  account. 

“  An  aphorism  borrowed  from  the  poet  Publius  Syrus  has  been  placed  upon  it  as  conveying  this  idea.  The 
legend  is,  '■Discipulus  est  priori  posterior  dies,'  which  may  be  freely  translated,  ‘Let  the  future  profit  by  the 
lessons  of  the  past.’  In  the  field  the  obelisk  is  seen  a  little  toward  the  right ;  in  the  background  the  sun  is 
represented  rising  over  the  sea,  being  an  allegory  recalling  the  ancient  association  of  the  obelisk  with  the  worship 
of  the  sun,  and  at  the  same  time  also  representing  a  part  of  the  arms  of  the  State  of  New  York.  In  the  lower 
field  of  the  medal  are  represented  the  shields  of  the  United  States  and  New  York  City,  grouped;  that  of  the 
United  States  being  surmounted  by  the  American  eagle,  and  that  of  New  York  resting  on  the  scroll  bearing  the 
word  ‘  Excelsior.’  These  two  shields,  grouped  with  laurel,  are  meant  to  represent  the  recipients  of  the  gift  from 
Egypt,  forming,  in  all,  a  trio  emblematic  of  the  East  and  the  West.” 

An  inner  border,  ornamented  with  stars,  representing  the  States  of  the  Union,  separates  somewhat  the 
legend  from  the  subject,  and  the  ground  of  the  outer  circle,  on  which  the  motto  is  placed,  is  filled  in  with  the 
conventional  lotos,  cut  in  low  relief  under  the  lettering,  appropriately  suggesting  a  souvenir  of  Egypt. 


TURNING  THE  OBELISK. 


Plate  XXVII  a 


y  HI 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


55 


The  reverse  side  of  the  medal  bears  the  following  inscription : 


PRESENTED  TO  THE 
UNITED  STATES 
BY 


ISMAIL ,  KHEDIVE  OF  EGYPT , 


1881. 


QUARRIED  A  T  SYENE 
AND  ERECTED  A  T  HELIOPOLIS  BY 


THOTHMES  III. 
RE-ERECTED  A  T  ALEXANDRIA 
UNDER  AUGUSTUS. 
REMOVED  TO  NEW  YORK 
THROUGH  THE  LIBERALITY  OF 
IV.  H.  VANDERBILT , 

BY  THE  SKILL  OF 


LIEUT.-COM.  H.  H.  GORRINGE,  U.  S.  N. 


The  bronze  crabs  placed  at  each  corner  of  the  obelisk  are  the  substitutes  of  the  original  ones  placed 
there  by  the  Romans  ;  they  bear  the  following  legends,  which  it  seems  appropriate  to  reproduce  here  as  matters 
of  historical  record  : 


First  crab,  first  claw : 


(Outside.) 


(Inside.) 


L.  H KAI2AP02 
BAPBAP02  ANE&HICE 
APXITEKTON  0TNT02 
WNTIOT 


AVGVSTI  CAES  APIS 
BABB  A  EPS  PRAEF 
AEG  YP  TI  POS  VI T 


AMMO  VIII 


ARCHITECTANTE  PONTIO 


(Reproduced  from  the  original.) 


Second  claw  (cartouch  of  Thothmes  III) : 

Quarried  at  Syene,  Egypt ;  erected  at  Heliopolis,  Egypt,  by  Thothmes  III  in  the  sixteenth  century  B.  C. 

Second  crab,  first  claw : 

Removed  to  Alexandria,  Egypt,  and  erected  there  B.  C.  22  by  the  Romans. 

Second  claw  : 

Removed  to  the  United  States  of  America  A.  D.  1880,  and  erected  in  New  York  City  January  22,  1881. 

Third  crab,  first  claw  : 

Presented  to  the  United  States  Government  by  Isma'fl,  Khedive  of  Egypt. 

Second  claw  : 

Rutherford  Burchard  Hayes,  President ;  William  Maxwell  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 

Fourth  crab,  first  claw : 

The  cost  of  removing  from  Egypt  and  placing  on  this  spot  this  obelisk,  pedestal,  and  base,  was  borne  by 
William  H.  Vanderbilt. 

Second  claw : 

Lieutenant-Commander  Henry  H.  Gorringe,  United  States  Navy,  designed  the  plans  for  and  superintended 
the  removal  and  re-erection. 

The  singing  of  “  Old  Hundred  ”  followed  the  presentation  of  medals  and  terminated  the  ceremonies. 

The  following  are  the  names  of  the  medal  recipients : 

William  H.  Vanderbilt. 

Lieutenant-Commander  Henry  H.  Gorringe,  U.  S.  Navy. 

Matthew  Francis  Farrell,  Thomas  G.  Killeen,  Clifford  Bishop,  Clarence  G.  Christie,  George  E.  Clark,  Eli 
Schreyer,  George  Cornell,  Edward  A.  Bruen,  Richard  Schumacher,  William  Mitchell,  John  E.  Timmons,  Jesse 
Rosenthal,  Josiah  Ramsey  Wray,  William  Klottman,  Max  Joseph  Zahed,  Adam  Kellerman,  Samuel  J.  Koplik, 
Herman  O.  Bohlen,  Charles  Keller,  Saly  Frankenberg,  Frank  Pokarny,  Diederich  F.  B.  Winter,  Floyd  S.  Neely, 
Charles  Geigerman,  Julius  Charles  Bernheim,  John  McKie,  William  A.  Painter,  Hugo  Reichart,  Charles  Strodl, 
Frederick  Biermann,  Julius  W.  Muller,  Gabriel  Ettinger,  Herman  Kaufman,  Alexander  Donald,  Henry  L.  C. 
Wenk,  Julius  Reinecke,  Edward  P.  Shields,  Andrew  Wieland,  Herbert  Joseph  Carr,  Robert  J.  Dyatt,  Peter  C. 
Brady,  George  H.  Huneke,  Samuel  S.  M.  Pettit,  Charles  Knapp,  William  Arthur  Gage,  George  Philip  Kohlman, 
Michael  Stern,  Charles  H.  Overbeck,  Henry  A.  Sherman,  Theodore  H.  Banks,  Frank  B.  Poor,  Julius  Grunow, 
Charles  Schalkenstein,  William  L.  Saulpaugh,  Horatio  N.  Flanagan,  Samuel  Linderman,  Charles  E.  See,  John  W. 


56 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Wood,  Henry  H.  Jackson,  Frank  Jones,  Julius  Rogaliner,  George  G.  Isaacs,  Joseph  P.  Hannigan,  Eugene 
O’Brien,  Reuben  Muller,  James  Cavanagh  Brady,  Henry  Powell,  William  O.  Holly,  Daniel  Quinn,  William  A. 
Dabbie,  Frederick  H.  Cumming,  Robert  E.  Dowling,  James  Houghton  Strong,  Eugene  Henry  Hoeber,  Robert 
Fitch  Shedden,  Joseph  Jacob  Myers,  Charles  Warren  Holton,  Herbert  C.  McKenzie,  Charles  W.  Irving,  Cornelius 
Carbonell,  Adam  F.  Pentz,  Martin  Strauss,  Benjamin  Veit,  David  A.  Pollor,  Thomas  William  Timpson,  George 
Urstadt,  Charles  Ellworth  Atwater,  Henry  M.  Walter,  William  C.  Littlewood,  Frank  Loomis  Eckerson,  Arthur 
J.  Lawrence,  David  Willard  Lamberson,  Samuel  Whitney  Dunscomb,  Charles  Alexander  Clinton,  William  Russell 
Bennett,  Garret  Schenck  Roome,  William  C.  Guth,  Alfred  W.  Pinneo,  David  D.  Jacobus,  Abbert  Finkelstein,  Emlin 
Frecklin. 

It  remains  only  to  state  the  cost,  to  complete  the  record  of  the  removal  of  the  obelisk. 

The  actual  net  expenditure  for  material  and  labor  for  the  whole  operation  aggregated  eighty-six 
thousand  six  hundred  and  three  dollars  ($86,603).  Of  this  sum  fifty-seven  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-one  dollars  ($57,871)  were  expended  on  the  obelisk,  and  twenty-eight  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  thirty-two  dollars  ($28,732)  on  the  pedestal,  steps,  and  foundation.  The  incidental  and  contingent 
expenditures,  in  which  are  included  interest,  commissions  for  use  of  money,  and  backsheesh ,  amounted  to 
fifteen  thousand  nine  hundred  and  seventy-three  dollars  ($15,973)  additional.  By  backsheesh  is  meant  the 
various  amounts  paid  to  different  persons  whose  good-will  was  necessary  to  success,  and  whose  ill-will 
would  have  involved  delays  and  lawsuits  that  would  have  been  ultimately  more  costly.  The  total  cost 
was  therefore  one  hundred  and  two  thousand  five  hundred  and  seventy-six  dollars  ($102,576).  Mr. 
Vanderbilt  had  agreed  to  pay  seventy-five  thousand  dollars  ($75,000)  when  the  obelisk  had  been 
re-erected  in  Central  Park, 1  and  subsequently  agreed  to  pay  the  cost  of  removing  the  pedestal, 
foundation,  and  steps.  After  the  obelisk  had  reached  New  York  he  advanced  forty-five  thousand  dollars 
($45,000)  to  defray  current  expenses  of  completing  the  work.  In  February,  1881,  after  the  obelisk  had 
been  erected,  he  paid  the  balance,  making  a  total  of  one  hundred  and  three  thousand  seven  hundred 
and  thirty-two  dollars  ($103,732)  paid  by  him.  The  difference,  eleven  hundred  and  fifty-six  dollars 
($1,1 56),  was  the  net  profits  derived  from  the  fulfilment  of  my  agreement. 

As  to  the  steamer  “  Dessoug  ”  :  The  money  to  purchase,  refit,  and  operate  her  was  advanced  by 
two  friends,  under  an  agreement  with  me  that  I  was  to  have  absolute  control1  of  her  until  the  obelisk 
had  been  disembarked.  In  consideration  for  this  I  agreed  to  pay  them  thirteen  hundred  pounds  sterling 
(£1,300,  $6,327)  “for  freight  and  other  charges  for  transporting,  from  Alexandria  to  New  York,  the 
obelisk,  its  pedestal,  and  foundation,  and  the  materials  used  in  removing  them.”  I  was  also  “  to  pay 
all  expenses  incurred  in  loading,  stowing,  and  discharging  the  obelisk  and  pedestal.”  I  further  agreed 
to  sell  the  steamer  to  the  best  possible  advantage  for  their  sole  benefit  and  to  guarantee  them  against 
loss.  These  terms  were  exceedingly  liberal  compared  with  the  proposals  for  charter  of  other  steamers 
that  had  been  made  me. 

After  the  obelisk  had  been  disembarked  at  Staten  Island,  the  aperture  in  the  “  Dessoug’s  ”  bow 
was  closed  and  she  was  towed  to  the  Brooklyn  Navy  Yard,  where  Commodore  G.  H.  Cooper,  the 
Commandant,  had  kindly  offered  me  space  to  lay  her  up. 

A  favorable  opportunity  to  sell  the  steamer  to  a  foreign  company,  to  ply  between  New  York  and 
West  India  ports  under  foreign  register  and  flag,  occurred  very  soon  after  the  obelisk  had  been 
disembarked.  It  seemed,  however,  desirable  that  the  vessel,  identified  as  she  was  with  the  work  of 
removing  the  obelisk,  should  have  an  American  register.  To  accomplish  this  a  special  act  of  Congress 
was  necessary.  Soon  after  Congress  met  I  visited  Washington  and  conferred  with  Mr.  Darius  Lyman, 
Chief  of  Navigation  Division,  Treasury  Department,  who  drew  the  following : 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  authorizing  the  inspection  and  issue  of  an  American  register  to  the  Egyptian  steamship 
“  Dessoug.” 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled , 
That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be,  and  is  hereby,  authorized  to  issue  an  American  register  to  the  steamship 


1  See  Correspondence,  p.  5. 


... 


ww 

fi 

■3 

» 

57 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

“  Dessoug,”  of  Egyptian  nationality  but  of  American  ownership  ;  and  that  the  inspection  of  her  machinery  and 
hull  shall  be  restricted  by  the  inspectors  of  steam-vessels  simply  to  the  inquiry  as  to  their  safety  for  the 
conveyance  of  passengers,  without  reference  to  the  mode  or  place  of  their  construction ;  and  that  a  special 
certificate  of  inspection  may  be  issued  for  said  steamship. 

I  took  a  copy  of  this  to  the  Honorable  William  M.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  who  gave  me  the 
following  letter  to  Senator  Matt  W.  Ransom,  of  North  Carolina,  and  Representative  John  H.  Reagan, 
of  Texas,  chairmen  respectively  of  the  Senate  and  House  Committees  of  Congress. 


Department  of  State,  Washington,  Jan.  5,  1881. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  bring  to  your  attention,  and,  through  your  committee,  that  of  the  Senate,  the 
eminent  propriety  of  procuring  the  passage  of  an  act  granting  an  American  register  to  the  steamer  “  Dessoug,” 
purchased  by  Lieutenant-Commander  H.  H.  Gorringe,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  and  employed  by  him  in  the 
successful  transportation  of  the  obelisk  known  as  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle  ”  from  Alexandria,  Egypt,  to  New  York. 

The  circumstances  under  which  the  obelisk  was  presented  by  the  government  of  Egypt  to  the  city  of  New 
York  are  so  familiar  that  I  need  merely  advert  to  the  brilliant  service  rendered  by  Lieutenant-Commander 
Gorringe,  involving  the  assumption  of  considerable  personal  risk  on  his  part,  and  notably  so  in  the  purchase  and 
alteration  of  a  sea-going  steamer  for  the  transportation  of  the  monolith. 

The  sentiment  of  national  pride  naturally  felt  in  this  successful  achievement,  coupled  with  the  international 
character  of  Mr.  Gorringe’s  service,  makes  it  fitting  that  some  appropriate  action  should  be  taken  by  Congress  in 
the  premises,  and  in  no  way  could  this  be  more  appropriately  done  than  by  permanently  identifying  the  vessel 
in  question  with  the  country  and  flag  to  which  she  has  rendered  so  signal  a  service. 

I  am  informed  that  the  prominent  merchants  and  ship-owners  of  New  York  are  in  favor  of  some  such 
recognition  of  what  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe  has  done  in  behalf  of  their  city,  and  that  the  course 
suggested  would  not  be  opposed  by  any  conflicting  shipbuilding  interest. 

The  accompanying  draft  of  a  bill  has  been  prepared  as  suitable  to  the  desired  end,  subject  to  the 
consideration  and  approval  of  your  committee,  to  which  I  earnestly  commend  it. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  EVARTS,  Secretary  of  State. 

The  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Senate  on  January  28,  1881  ;  by  the  House  on  February  1, 
1881,  and  approved  by  the  President  on  February  8,  1881.  Senator  Francis  Kiernan  and  Repre¬ 
sentatives  Anson  G.  McCook,  of  New  York,  John  G.  Carlisle,  of  Kentucky,  and  W.  C.  Whitthorne,  of 
Tennessee,  together  with  the  chairmen  of  the  committees,  were  chiefly  instrumental  in  pushing  it 
through  the  crowded  calendar  of  an  expiring  Congress  and  against  a  decided  opposition  to  its  passage 
that  was  unexpectedly  developed.  To  strengthen  their  efforts  four  petitions  for  the  passage  of  the 
resolution,  signed  by  several  hundred  members  of  the  Produce  Exchange  and  other  commercial  bodies 
of  New  York,  were  presented  at  different  times  to  Congress  while  the  measure  was  pending.  These 
petitions  were  prepared  and  circulated  chiefly  through  the  efforts  of  Mr.  T.  H.  Parker,  President  of  the 
Produce  Exchange,  Mr.  W.  H.  Paton,  and  Mr.  Marvelle  W.  Cooper,  merchants  of  New  York. 

The  “  Dessoug  ”  was  sold  to  the  Ocean  Steamship  Co.  of  Savannah,  for  a  less  sum  than  that 
offered  for  her  by  the  foreign  company.  This  fact  is  recorded  in  order  to  prove  that  the  value  of  the 
vessel  was  not  enhanced  by  granting  her  an  American  register,  as  was  stated  in  some  of  the  news¬ 
papers  at  the  time  and  has  never  been  denied. 

The  following  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  Honorable  Abram  S. 
Hewitt,  of  New  York,  passed  unanimously  by  that  body,  called  up  in  the  Senate  by  the  Honorable  T. 
F.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  and  passed  unanimously  there  : 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  tendering  the  thanks  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  His  Highness,  the 
Khedive  of  Egypt,  for  the  gift  of  an  ancient  obelisk. 

Whereas ,  the  Khedive  of  Egypt  presented  to  the  United  States  the  ancient  Egyptian  obelisk  known 
as  Cleopatra’s  Needle,  which  has  been  removed  and  re-erected  in  the  city  of  New  York,  thus  placing  in  the 


58 


Removal  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


possession  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  one  of  the  most  famous  monuments  of  the  Old  World  and  one 
of  the  earliest  records  of  civilization  ;  Be  it  therefore, 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress 
assembled,  that  the  thanks  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  hereby  tendered  to  His  Highness,  the  Khedive 
of  Egypt,  for  a  gift  which  only  the  oldest  of  nations  could  make  and  the  youngest  can  most  highly  prize. 

Approved,  January  12,  1881. 


THE  NEW  YORK  OBELISK 


. 


. 


» 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  ARCHAEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  OBELISK 

SYMBOLISM. 

IN  the  ancient  Egyptian  mythology  the  Supreme  Creator  was  worshipped  through  His  attributes  as 
they  appeared  to  men’s  minds.  The  sun  was  regarded  as  more  nearly  representing  Him  than 
any  other  apprehensible  object.  The  religion  of  the  Egyptians  was,  therefore,  essentially  sun-worship. 
Almost  endless  was  the  variety  of  their  deities — endless  as  the  variety  of  the  Creator’s  attributes. 
They  worshipped  these  deities  much  as  a  great  many  people  of  the  present  time  bow  to  and  adore 
inanimate  representations  of  their  spiritual  conceptions.  The  main  difference  is  that  the  objects  adored 
by  the  Egyptians  as  representing  the  attributes  of  the  Divine  Creator  were  invariably  the  creations 
of  nature, — man,  and  other  animals,  birds,  reptiles,  and  fishes,  while  the  objects  adored  by  many 
devotees  of  the  present  day  are  invariably  the  creations  of  man.  On  the  subject  of  ancient  Egyptian 
belief  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  many  works  in  which  it  is  discussed  more  fully  and  instructively 
than  the  author  is  capable  of  discussing  it.  James  Bonwick’s  “Egyptian  Belief  and  Modern  Thought”  is 
an  admirable  resume  of  the  subject. 

An  obelisk  appears  to  have  been  symbolic  of  the  highest  attributes  of  nature, — generation  and 
reproduction,  that  is  to  say,  re-creation.  There  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  an  object  of  adoration  in 
itself.  Obelisks  invariably  bore  the  sculptured  representations  of  the  gods  to  whom  they  were  dedicated 
and  of  the  kings  who  erected  them.  Both  were  worshipped.  The  assumption  that  an  obelisk  was 
itself  an  object  of  adoration  seems  to  be  founded  on  the  sculptures  on  scarabee,  representing  human 
figures  in  the  attitude  of  adoration  before  an  obelisk.  On  one  scarab  there  is  engraved  a  sphinx  and 
two  men  kneeling,  one  on  either  side  of  an  obelisk,  which  bears  the  prenomen  of  Thothmes  III. 
Parker  states  that  the  kneeling  figure  “  on  each  side  of  the  obelisk  is  the  king, — Thothmes  III,  in  a 
royal  garment,  worshipping  the  obelisk.”  If  this  were  correct  we  would  have  the  anomaly  of  the  king 
worshipping  himself.  The  relation  of  the  kings  to  the  gods  is  aptly  compared  by  Bonwick  to  the 
attitude  of  the  heads  of  certain  Christian  sects  toward  the  founders  of  Christianity. 

Infallibility  and  supreme  power  over  the  world  and  its  inhabitants  were  claimed  by  the  Pharoahs 
as  they  are  by  the  Popes  and  Patriarchs.  The  claims  of  the  latter  in  this  regard  were  acknowledged 
for  a  few  centuries,  those  of  the  former  for  many.  The  Egyptian  kings  assumed  divine  power  and 
prerogatives,  personated  the  Deity,  were  adored  while  living,  and  worshipped  after  death.  Obelisks 
seem  to  have  borne  the  same  relation  to  the  living  kings  as  did  the  pyramids  to  those  who  had 
passed  from  life  to  a  state  of  transition  or  inaction  termed  death.  Some  of  the  early  sculptures  in 
Egypt  represent  an  obelisk  surmounting  a  pyramid.  Belief  in  the  resurrection  explains  this  association. 
Re-creation,  as  represented  by  the  obelisk,  springs  from  and  rises  out  of  the  transitory  condition  called 
death,  symbolized  by  the  pyramid.  As  obelisks  were  originally  erected  only  on  the  east  bank  of  the 

59 


6o 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Nile  and  pyramids  only  on  the  west  bank,  the  one  has  been  regarded  as  allegorical  of  the  rising,  as  the 
other  is  of  the  setting  sun,  aptly  representing  the  living  and  the  departed  monarchs. 

The  sacred  character  of  the  obelisk  is  proven  by  its  invariable  association  with  the  Egyptian  temples. 
In  this  respect  the  obelisk  and  sphinx  are  alike.  The  temples  were  not  complete  without  them,  yet 
they  formed  no  part  of  the  temple  ;  they  were  exterior  accessories — a  part  of  the  system  of  Egyptian 
architecture  as  it  embodies  the  profound  thought  of  the  Egyptian  religion.  This  association  of  the 
obelisk  and  sphinx  leads  naturally  to  another  conclusion  as  to  their  significance.  The  sphinx  is  believed 
to  have  been  designed  to  represent  the  highest  development  of  physical  and  intellectual  force,  the  body 
of  a  lion,  combining  activity,  grace,  and  strength,  with  the  head  of  a  man,  the  most  intellectual  of 
created  beings.  The  obelisk  is  believed  to  represent  the  most  essential  and  mysterious  power  of 
nature, — that  of  re-production. 

In  the  museum  of  the  Louvre,  in  Paris,  there  is  a  series  of  engraved  scarabee  that  tend  to  confirm 
this  view.  The  gradual  development  from  the  original  to  the  existing  form  of  an  obelisk,  through  the 
earlier  periods  of  Egyptian  progress  from  barbarism  to  civilization,  is  clearly  shown. 

The  obelisk  seems  to  have  been  the  special  representative  of  the  king  and  sovereign  pontiff  in 
Egyptian  sacred  architecture.  On  the  shaft  are  engraved  his  titles,  a  record  of  his  victories,  and  an 
assertion  of  his  supreme  power  over  the  lives  and  property  of  his  subjects.  On  the  surmounting 
pyramidion  are  representatives  of  the  gods  conferring  these  titles  and  powers  on  the  king,  who  is 
frequently  represented  as  a  sphinx.  Every  thing  tends  to  associate  the  obelisk  with  king-worship  as 
its  material  purpose,  and  with  the  power  of  generation  and  re-creation  as  its  symbolic  meaning. 

The  obelisk  is  not  exclusively  Egyptian.  Essentially  the  same  form  is  found  in  Assyria,  Persia, 
and  India,  and  even  in  America,  although  not  well  enough  defined  in  the  latter  to  be  beyond  question. 

Bononi  and  others  have  identified  the  idol  which  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego  declined  to 
worship  as  an  obelisk.  “  It  was  not  only  a  representative  of  the  divinity  of  the  sovereign  himself, 
but  bore  idolatrous  emblems.  To  bow  to  it  was  an  acknowledgment  of  the  false  gods  and  a 
recognition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  god,  *  *  *  Captain  Selby  found  near  Babylon,  on  the  ‘Waste, 
of  Dura,’  the  remains  of  a  pyramidal  column,  which  some  identify  as  the  image  once  covered  with 
gold.”  1  The  proportions  are  those  of  an  obelisk. 

Obelisks  represent  in  Egyptian  sacred  architecture  exactly  the  same  idea  as  church  towers  with 
surmounting  steeples  represent  in  that  of  to-day.  The  tower  corresponds  to  the  shaft  of  the  obelisk,  the 
steeple  to  the  pyramidion.  The  form  and  proportions  are  different  because  modified  by  the  fancy  of 
man  through  centuries  ;  but  it  is  a  striking  fact  that  if  these  relics  of  the  distant  past  are  traced  through 
their  modifications  we  return  to  the  obelisk.  The  position  with  reference  to  the  temple  or  church  is 
identical  ;  and  while  it  is  customary  at  the  present  time  to  place  but  one  steeple  on  churches,  the  two 
towers  are  preserved,  and  stand,  as  did  obelisks  in  Egyptian  architecture,  one  on  each  side  of  the 
entrance  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  temple  or  church,  of  which  they  form  an  essential  part. 

The  material  of  which  obelisks  were  made,  red  syenite,  may  have  had  a  symbolic  reference  to  the 
color  of  the  sun’s  rays  as  seen  by  the  Egyptians  through  the  hazy  atmosphere  that  pervades  the  valley 
of  the  Nile.  Red  syenite  was  also  the  hardest  substance  available  for  making  them  ;  and  this  was 
chosen  from  the  quarries  of  Syene,  where  there  is  a  stratum  unequalled  for  its  uniformity  and  freedom 
from  cracks  and  veins  of  foreign  matter,  thereby  enabling  the  architect  to  set  no  limit  to  the  dimensions 
save  that  necessary  for  safety  of  removal  and  transport. 

FORM. 

An  obelisk  is  a  monolithic  quadrilateral  shaft  terminating  in  a  pyramidion.  The  proportions  are 
not  fixed  ;  they  vary  even  in  those  erected  in  one  reign.  The  size  and  proportions  were  probably 


1  Bonwick,  p.  300. 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk.  61 

determined  solely  by  the  mass  that  had  been  removed  from  the  quarry.  The  sides  of  many  are  not 
even  of  uniform  dimensions.  The  obelisks  of  Luxor  have  a  slight  curvature  of  two  of  the  faces,  in 
which  they  differ  from  all  others.1  The  earlier  obelisks  are  generally  more  slender  than  the  later. 
The  proportions  vary  from  eleven  times  to  eight  times  the  width  at  base  for  total  height.  The  New 
York  obelisk  which  belongs  to  the  first  period  of  Egyptian  renaissance  is  nine  times  its  width  at  base  in 
total  height.  It  is  impossible  to  find  any  two  original  authorities  who  give  the  same  dimensions  for  any 
one  Egyptian  obelisk.  The  table  in  Chapter  V  is  the  result  of  a  careful  compilation  of  the  data  available 
for  determining  the  dimensions  of  the  obelisks  recorded  in  this  volume. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  shaft  of  the  New  York  obelisk  would  come  to  a  point  if  it  was  twice 
as  long  as  it  is  ;  that  the  height  of  the  pyramidion  is  equal  to  the  width  of  the  shaft  at  the  bottom  ; 
and  that  the  width  of  the  top  of  the  shaft  is  two  thirds  that  of  the  bottom.  How  far  these  features  may 
extend  to  obelisks  generally  cannot  be  determined  until  accurate  dimensions  are  known. 

The  sides  of  the  shaft  are  inscribed  with  vertical  rows  of  hieroglyphical  characters.  The  faces  of 
the  pyramidion  contain  figures  and  inscriptions.  All  are  in  intaglio  relievo.  Every  part  of  the 
surface  was  originally  polished.  Some  of  the  obelisks  in  Egypt,  notably  those  of  Usortesen  and 

Hatasou,  retain  a  high  polish  still.  If  the  translations  are  correct  the  inscriptions  have  little  historical 
value.  Those  on  the  pyramidions  are  unquestionably  dedicatory  ;  the  translations  of  those  on  the 
shaft  are  little  more  than  “  a  monotonous  list  of  official  epithets  and  magniloquent  titles.”  One 

noticeable  feature  of  Egyptian  obelisks  is  their  durability,  amounting  almost  to  indestructibility.  They 

have  experienced  vicissitudes  at  the  hands  of  man,  and  have  passed  through  convulsions  of  nature  that 
would  have  destroyed  almost  any  thing  else.  Doubtless  many  have  been  destroyed  ;  the  wonder  is 
that  one  remains.  Every  conquest  of  Egypt  of  which  we  have  any  record,  from  that  of  Asshurbanipal 
B.  C.  662  to  that  of  Napoleon  in  this  century,  has  been  followed  by  the  removal  of  one  or  more  obelisks 
from  their  original  positions  to  others  designated  by  the  conquerer  in  and  out  of  Egypt.  There  can 
be  no  better  proof  of  the  interest  they  excite  and  the  curiosity  they  arouse.  Their  symmetrical  form 
attracts  the  eye  as  their  associations  fascinate  the  mind.  Their  presence  leads  inevitably  to  historical 
research.  What  is  the  obelisk  ?  Whence  came  it  ?  What  manner  of  people  created  it  ?  How  was 

it  cut  ?  What  machinery  moved  it  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  characters  engraved  on  it  ?  These 
are  among  the  questions  that  arise  in  the  minds  of  Americans  as  they  stand  before  the  New  York 
obelisk.  The  result  of  its  removal  to  this  country  will  be  chiefly  educational.  The  erection  in  this 
city  of  a  monument,  so  simple  in  form,  and  yet  so  grandly  impressive  in  its  outline  and  proportions, 
may  be  to  arrest  the  tendency  of  our  architecture  to  extravagance  of  detail.  That  grace  and  elegance 
may  be  achieved  by  simplicity  is  one  of  the  artistic  lessons  unlearned  in  America,  but  forcibly  taught 
by  the  obelisk. 

Of  the  three  characteristic  forms  of  Egyptian  monuments — the  obelisk,  the  sphinx,  and  the  pyramid 
— the  first  is  the  only  one  that  has  been  universally  adopted.  It  is  a  curious  evidence  of  the  force  of 
habit,  and  the  imperishable  influence  exerted  over  the  world  by  early  Egyptian  civilization,  doctrines, 
and  beliefs,  that  the  obelisk  is  to-day  the  most  common  form  of  sepulchral  monument.  While  the 
scarab  symbolized  resurrection  itself  the  obelisk  symbolized  the  power  behind  resurrection, — that  of 
re-creation,  and  thus  becomes  the  most  appropriate  of  all  forms  to  mark  the  graves  of  those  who  believe 
in  a  future  state. 

THE  INSCRIPTIONS. 

Plate  xxx,  the  four  faces  of  the  pyramidion,  is  a  reproduction  of  squeezes  made  directly  from 
the  obelisk.  The  figures  and  inscriptions  were  blackened  on  the  squeezes,  which  were  then 
photographed.  We  have  therefore  an  absolutely  accurate  copy  of  the  figures  and  hieroglyphical 
characters  that  remain  after  twenty-five  centuries  of  exposure  to  atmospheric  influences.  The  vacant 


1  See  Chapter  III. 


6  2 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

spaces  in  the  upper  rows  of  hieroglyphs  in  the  oblongs  under  the  sphinxes,  and  between  the  oblongs 
and  the  seated  figures  in  the  two  upper  squares,  indicate  where  the  hieroglyphs  have  been  obliterated. 

The  Rosetta  stone1  furnished  a  key  to  the  meaning  of  certain  characters  and  groups  in  hiero- 
glyphical  writings.  This  has  been  made  the  basis  of  all  translations.  While  it  must  be  admitted 
that  there  has  been  an  approach  to  correct  rendering  in  modern  languages  of  many  of  the  hieroglyphical 
writings  and  inscriptions,  it  is  certain  that  the  grouping  of  characters  and  their  values  in  different 
relative  positions  are  not  as  yet  sufficiently  understood  to  warrant  accepting  the  translations  as 
accurate.  It  is  also  certain  that  the  Egyptian  mind  had  reached  a  stage  of  development  in  all 
branches  of  human  knowledge  far  beyond  that  indicated  by  the  translations  of  the  inscriptions  on  the 
monuments.  To  accept  as  accurate  the  translation  of  the  inscriptions  on  the  New  York  obelisk  given 
further  on,  would  be  equivalent  to  assuming  that  Thothmes  III  and  Ramses  II  were  a  pair  of  vain¬ 
glorious  fools.  Is  such  an  assumption  consistent  with  the  marks  on  the  world  s  history  that  were 
left  by  these  men?  The  achievements  of  Thothmes  III  in  war  and  the  results  of  his  consolidation  of 
the  Nile  States  into  one  empire  are  unequalled  in  modern  history.  Ramses  II  was  for  many  centuries 
before  Christ  what  Caesar  is  to  the  Christian  era.  Men  combining  the  superior  qualities  of  these 
monarchs  could  not  have  left  such  incomprehensible  nonsense  for  posterity  to  judge  them  by,  as  that 
assumed  by  Chabas  and  Brugsch  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  hieroglyphs  on  the  New  York  obelisk. 

The  meaning  of  the  sculptures  on  the  pyramidion  of  the  New  York  obelisk  affords  a  good 
example  of  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  subject  even  of  the  most  eminent  Egyptologists.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Birch2  the  vignettes  or  squares  represent  Thothmes  III  as  a  sphinx  adoring  Ra  and 
Turn,  two  deities  of  Egyptian  mythology.  According  to  Chabas3  “  the  pyramidion  represents  a 
square  vignette  in  which  is  figured  the  king  seated  on  a  throne  before  the  sphinx  of  Hor-em-akhou 
Harmachis,  upon  a  pedestal,”  to  whom  the  obelisk  was  dedicated.'  According  to  Brugsch  the  sculptures 
on  the  pyramidion  represent  the  god  Ra,  and  the  king,  Thothmes  III,  seated  on  a  throne,  before  them 
the  sphinx,  emblem  of  the  physical  and  intellectual  force. 

The  squeezes  of  the  pyramidion  were  made  by  Mr.  H.  de  Morgan,  who  has  kindly  furnished  me 
for  publication  the  following  explanation  and  translation  that  he  has  reached  after  prolonged  study  and 
careful  comparison  of  the  sculptures  with  the  figures  of  identified  deities  in  Egyptian  mythology. 

In  the  left  hand  upper  square  of  Plate  xxx  the  god  Atum,6  seated,  presents  to  the  king,  Thothmes 
III,  the  sceptre  and  crux  ansata.  The  former  is  the  emblem  of  authority,  the  latter  is  the  emblem  of 
life.  Thothmes  III  is  represented  as  a  sphinx.  He  extends  one  hand  to  receive  the  emblems  and 
with  the  other  presents  an  offering. 

What  remains  of  the  hieroglyphs  in  this  square  has  been  literally  translated  by  Mr.  de  Morgan 
as  follows  :  *  *  *  giver,  Ra-men-Kheper,  gracious  God,  lord  of  the  world,  giver  of  life,  beloved 

by  Turn,  master  of  the  world.  The  word  Ra-men-Kheper  is  enclosed  in  an  oval  with  a  line  tangent 
to  the  lower  end,  that  is  known  as  a  cartouch.  It  is  the  prenomen  of  the  king,  Thothmes  III. 

On  the  upper  right  square  the  god  is  Ra.6  Enclosed  by  the  oblong  under  the  sphinx  are  the 

‘Discovered  in  1799  by  Captain  Bouchard,  an  engineer  officer  of  the  French  army.  “Parker,  p.  43. 

3  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  x,  p.  22.  4 *  The  great  sphinx  at  Gizeh  was  dedicated  to  Harmachis. 

6  Atum  was  especially  the  god  of  Heliopolis.  The  great  temple  there  was  called  “  the  house  of  Atum,”  as  a  church 
is  called  “the  house  of  God.”  He  is  described  as  “the  source  of  life,”  and  in  the  Egyptian  ritual  there  is  the  following:  “I 
am  Atum  making  the  heavens,  creating  beings,  self-created,  lord  of  life.”  Wilkinson  (p.  178,  vol.  iii)  states  that  he  was 

“  one  of  the  principal  deities  of  the  second  order  of  gods.”  Bonwick  (p.  94)  assumes  that  he  was  the  “  rising  sun,”  while 

Rawlinson  (vol.  i,  p.  347)  asserts  that  Atum  represented  “  the  sun  as  he  approaches  or  rests  upon  the  western  horizon  just 
before  and  when  he  sets.” 

3  Ra,  like  Atum,  was  one  of  the  sun-gods  of  Egyptian  mythology.  Ra  appears  to  have  chiefly  represented  the  mid-day 

sun.  To  describe  Ra  in  all  his  phases  would  be  equivalent  to  writing  a  treatise  on  Egyptian  gods.  It  is  recorded  of  Ra 

that  he  was  “born  of  Neith,  but  not  engendered”;  also,  that  he  came  from  the  side  of  his  mother.  There  is  a  striking 

similarity  between  the  Ra  of  Egyptian  mythology  and  the  Son  of  Christianity.  Ra  seems  to  have  formed  the  connecting 
link  between  the  spiritual  and  material  world.  He  was  almost  universally  worshipped  throughout  Egypt.  He  is  commonly 
represented  as  having  a  hawk’s  head,  and  above  this  is  a  sphere,  or  disk,  to  designate  the  sun.  It  is  inexplicable  that  the 


THE  FOUR  FACES  OF  THE  PYRAMID  1  ON. 

Egyptian  Obelisk,  Central  Park,  New  York. 


Copyright  88*  by  SARROUN  4r  blEKBTADT,  New  York. 


Plate  XXX 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


63 


titles  and  prenomen  of  the  king,  that  have  been  translated  thus :  Son  of  the  sun,  Ra-men-Kheper, 
Strong  Bull,  Horus.  One  character  is  wanting.  The  horizontal  and  vertical  lines  under  these  titles 
represent  the  royal  standard.  The  hieroglyphs  between  the  sceptre  and  oblong  of  this  square 
are  partly  obliterated  ;  those  that  remain  mean  nothing  in  themselves.  The  horizontal  row  on  top 
is  also  incomplete  ;  what  remains  indicates  that  they  have  essentially  the  same  meaning  as  the 
hieroglyphs  similarly  situated  in  the  left  upper  square. 

In  the  lower  left-hand  square  the  inscription  on  top  is  nearly  complete.  It  has  been  translated 
thus  :  Giver  of  life,  Ra-men-Kheper,  gracious  god,  master  of  the  world,  giver  of  life,  Horus-Ra,  lord 
of  the  world,  god,  lord  of  heaven.  The  group  of  hieroglyphs  between  the  sceptre  and  oblong  signifies 
that  the  king  makes  presents  to  Ra. 

In  the  lower  right-hand  square  there  is  apparently  nothing  wanting.  The  inscription  on  top  reads : 
Ra-men-Kheper,  king  of  lower  and  upper  Egypt,  master  of  the  world,  gracious  god  of  Heliopolis, 
king,  giver  of  life,  stability,  and  power,  beloved  of  Atum,  lord  of  Heliopolis,  gracious  god,  lord  of 
the  temple.  The  inscription  between  the  oblong  and  seated  figure  reads  :  He  made  presents  of 
libations  to  Noun,  who  has  made  him  giver  of  life. 

It  is  probable  that  the  sculptures  and  hieroglyphs  on  the  four  faces  of  the  pyramidion  are  simply 
dedicatory  to  the  two  gods,  Ra  and  Atum  ;  to  Ra  as  god  of  heaven,  and  Atum  as  god  of 
Heliopolis.  It  would  not  be  straining  a  point  to  render  the  inscription  on  top  of  the  lower  left 
square  thus  :  Ra-men-Kheper,  king  by  divine  right,  master  of  the  world,  with  power  over  life  (dedicates 
this)  to  Horus-Ra,  god  of  the  universe  (or  of  earth  and.  heaven).  The  characters  under  the  sphinx 
are  probably  simply  the  king’s  name  and  titles.  Those  between  the  god  and  king  explain  their 
attitudes.  In  the  lower  right  square  the  inscription  would  be  in  perfect  keeping  with  those  of  modern 
times  if  it  were  translated  thus  :  Ra-men-Kheper,  king  of  united  Egypt,  master  of  the  world,  high- 
priest  of  Heliopolis,  with  power  over  life  and  property,  dedicates  this  to  beloved  Turn,  god  of  Heliopolis 
and  gracious  lord  of  the  world. 

Plate  xxxi,  the  four  sides  of  the  obelisk,  will  enable  the  student  of  hieroglyphs  to  seek  a  more 
satisfactory  translation  than  the  author  can  furnish.  The  translation  of  Chabas  is  as  follows  : 

NORTH  SIDE. 


LEFT. 

CENTRE. 

RIGHT. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

The  kingly  Horus  lifting  up  the 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  Beloved  of  the  god- 

Hat ;  (White  Crown,) 

Strong  Bull,  Son  of  Tum, 

dess,  Ma, 

the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

Egypt, 

Egypt, 

Egypt. 

Golden  Hawk, 

the  Lord  of  Diadems, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra,1 

who  has  struck  the  kings  of 

who  protects  Egypt  and  chastises 

Lord  of  panegyries  like  his  father,’ 

all  lands  approaching  him ; 

the  nations. 

Ptah  Totanen, 

after  the  commandment 

Son  of  the  Sun, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 

of  his  father,  Ra. 

Ramessou  Meriamen, 

Ramessou  Meriamen. 

Victory  over  the  entire  world, 

king,  warlike, 

Ra  has  generated  him 

and  valiance  of  sword  are  at  the 

who  has  acted  with  his  own  hands, 

to  adorn  festively  Heliopolis 

mouth  of  his  hands 

in  the  face  of  the  whole  earth, 

to  furnish  abundantly  the  temples 

for  the  extension  of  the  limits 

the  Lord  of  the  two  lands, 

of  him  who  generated  him. 

of  Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 1 

The  lord  of  the  two  lands 

the  Son  of  the  Sun, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra,1 

Son  of  the  Sun, 

Ramessou  Meriamen, 

(invested  with  life)  stability  and 
happiness. 

Thothmes,  Vivifier. 

Ramessou  Meriamen, 
the  stable.3 

head  of  Ra  on  two  of  the  four  faces  of  the  pyramidion  should  have  been  so  nearly  obliterated,  while  the  head  of  Atum  has 
been  so  well  preserved.  It  is  barely  possible  that  the  head  of  Ra  may  have  been  gilded,  while  that  of  Atum  was  only 
polished  like  the  rest  of  the  surfaces,  and  that  this  gilding  may  have  been  the  cause  of  the  obliteration. 

‘Prenomen  of  Ramses  II.  ’Lord  of  Festivals.  ’Inscription  incomplete. 


6\ 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


LEFT. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

The  Strong  Bull,  Son  of  Kheper- 
Ra,1 

the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 
Golden  Hawk, 
of  abundant  years, 

(very)  victorious, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 
Ramessou  Meriamen, 
who  issued  from  the  womb, 
to  take  the  crowns  of  the  sun ; 
whom  the  sun  generated  to  be 
(the) 

sole  Lord,  Lord  of  the  two  lands, 
Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 
Ramessou  Meriamen, 
the  splendor  of  OSIRIS, 
like  the  sun. 


LEFT. 

The  kingly  Horus, 

Strong  Bull,  Son  of  the  Sun, 
the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 
Golden  Hawk, 


Son  of  the  Sun, 
Ramessou  Meriamen4 


LEFT. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  Beloved  .  .  . 

the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra. 
Lord  of  panegyries 
like  his  father  Ptah,  Lord  of  .  .  . 
Ramessou  Meriamen.6 


east  SIDE. 

CENTRE. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  crowned  in  Thebes, 
the  Lord  of  Diadems, 
whose  royalty  is  expanded, 
like  (that  of)  the  Sun. 
(Beloved  of  Tum,  Lord  of 
Heliopolis, 

Son  of  his  loins, 

Thoth  created  him,  Thothmes.)* 3 
They  created  him  in  the  great 
abode, 

from  the  perfection  of  their  limbs, 
so  that  he  will  make  an  extended 
royalty  for  centuries. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-men-Kheper, 

Beloved  of  Tum,  the  great  god, 
and  the  gods  of  his  circle, 
giving  all  life,  stability,  and 
happiness 

like  the  sun  for  ever. 


SOUTH  SIDE. 

CENTRE. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  crowned  in  Thebes, 
the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-men-Kheper.4 *  .  .  . 


west  side. 

CENTRE. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  crowned  in  Thebes, 
the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-men-Kheper.6 


RIGHT. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  Beloved  of  Ma, 
the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 
(who  is)  a  sun,  generator  of  gods, 
Possessor  of  the  two  lands, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 
Ramessou  Meriamen, 
a  noble  youth  of  kindness 
like  Aten3 

blazing  from  the  horizon. 

Lord  of  the  two  lands, 
Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 

Son  of  the  Sun, 
Ramessou  Meriamen, 
the  splendor  of  OSIRIS, 
Vivifier. 


RIGHT. 

The  kingly  HORUS, 

Strong  Bull,  Beloved  of  Ma, 
the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-ousor-ma-Sotep-en-Ra, 
(who  is)  a  sun,  generator  of  gods, 


Lord  of  the  two  lands 
Ramessou  Meriamen.4  . 


RIGHT.* 


1  The  Creator. 

3  “  This  cartouch  is  very  curious  and  interesting,  as  the  phrase  is  calculated  to  form  the  name  of  Thothmes  with  the 

last  word  of  each  column.” 

*  The  solar  disk.  4  Remainder  illegible  or  not  translated.  6  Remainder  illegible  or  not  translated.  6  Illegible. 


ARTOTYPE 


BlERSTAOT  N  Y 


THE  FOUR  SIDES  OF  THE  OBELISK 


Plate  XXXI 


65 


A  rchceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


The  following  is  the  translation  of  Brugsch  Bey,  first  published  in  the  New  York  Herald  of 
February  22,  1880.  Dr.  Brugsch  thus  describes  the  sculptures  on  the  pyramidion  :  On  the  north  face, 
corresponding  to  the  lower  left  square  of  Plate  xxx,  “  King  Thuthmes1  III  is  represented  as  a  sphinx, 
with  the  head  and  arms  of  a  man.  He  is  offering  two  vases  of  wine  to  the  Sun-God  On.  His  body 
rests  on  a  sort  of  pylon,  decorated  with  the  titles  : — 


“  The  Strong  Bull, 

Who  manifests  himself 
King 

In  the  Thebai'd, 

The  Son  of  the  Sun : 

Thutmes. 

“  Over  the  body  may  be  read  : — 

“  The  Gracious  God, 

Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds, 

King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt, 
Ra-men-kheper.” . 


On  the  west  face,  which  corresponds  with  the  lower  right  square  of  Plate  xxx,  Dr.  Brugsch  says  : — 
“  The  representation  and  the  text  inscribed  upon  the  pylon  are  the  same  as  those  on  Face  A,”  which 
is  the  preceding.  He  states  further  that  “  The  inscriptions  engraved  over  the  sphinx  and  the  figure  of 
the  god  are  not  sufficiently  distinct  to  here  read  them.”  In  which  he  is  manifestly  in  error.2 

The  sculptures  and  inscriptions  on  the  south  face,  corresponding  to  the  upper  left  square  of 
Plate  xxx,  he  regards  as  illegible. 

On  the  east  face,  corresponding  with  the  upper  right  square,  he  states  that  “  The  representation 
and  the  text  inscribed  upon  the  pylon  are  the  same  as  those  on  Face  A.  The  Sun-God  is  this  time 
called  1  Hormakhu' — that  is,  the  Harmais  or  Harmachis  of  the  Greeks. 

“  The  King’s  titles  are  :  — 

“  The  Gracious  God, 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds: 

Ra-men-kheper. 


“  The  offering  to  the  god  is  indicated  by  the  inscription  : — 

“Gift  of  Wine.” 


TEXT  OF  THE  LEFT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus:  the  Strong  Bull. 

Friend  of  Justice. 

King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt. 

Lord  of  the  Periods  of  Thirty  years. 

Like  his  Father  Ptah-Tanen  [ the 
God  of  Memphis ]. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun:  Ramessu 
Meri-amun  3  [ that  is  to  say,  the 
Friend  of  the  God  Amon  of 
Thebes ]. 

The  Sun  created  him. 

To  Cause  Great  Rejoicing  in  the 
City  of  On,  and  to  fill  with 
Riches  the  Sanctuaries  of  his 
Creator. 


NORTH  SIDE  OF  SHAFT. 

TEXT  OF  THE  CENTRE  LINE. 

{Name  of  the  Royal  Standard.\ 

Horus:  Magnified  and  Enlightened 
by  the 

Crown  of  Upper  Egypt. 

[  The  Official  Standard .] 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt : 

Ra-men-kheper. 

{The  Title  of  the  Victorious. ] 

The  Golden  Horus. 

The  Strong  of  Arm, 

Who  beat  the  Kings  of  Foreign 
Nations 


TEXT  OF  THE  RIGHT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus  :  the  Strong  Bull. 

The  Son  of  Turn. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt. 

Ra-user-ma. 

The  Chosen  one  of  the  Sun. 

Lord  of  the  Diadems  of  the  Vult¬ 
ure  and  of  the  Serpent. 
Protector  of  Egypt. 

Chastiser  of  Foreign  Nations. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun,  Ramessu 
Meri-amun. 

The  Conqueror, 

Who  with  his  Own  Arms 
Performed  Great  Deeds 


1  Thothmes.  3  See  Plate  xxx. 

3  In  the  Greek  lists  of  Manethos  containing  the  names  of  the  Pharaohs  this  name  Meri-amun  is  written  Miamun. 


66 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

north  side  of  shaft. — ( Continued, .) 


TEXT  OF  THE  LEFT-HAND  LINE. 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds: 
Ra-user-ma. 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu 
Meri-amun, 

Who  gives  Life  of  all  Stability  and 
Purity 

To-day  as  ever  after. 


TEXT  OF  THE  LEFT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus:  the  Strong  Bull, 

Son  of  the  Sun-God  Kheper  \thai 
is,  of  him  who  exists]. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

Egypt, 

Ra-user-ma, 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

The  Golden  Horus  : 

Rich  in  Years  ;  Grand  in  Victories. 
The  Son  of  the  Sun  :  Ramessu  Meri- 
amun. 

He  came  out  from  the  Belly, 

To  receive  the  Crowns  from  the 
Sun-God  Ra, 

Who  created  him  to  be  the  Sole 
Monarch. 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds :  Ra- 
user-ma, 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu  Meri- 
amun. 

The  Reflected  Splendor  of 
The  God  Turn 
Like  the  Sun. 


TEXT  OF  THE  CENTRE  LINE. 

Who  were  numbered  by  hundreds 
of  thousands, 

For  his  Father,  the  Sun-God  Ra, 
ordained  for  him 
Victories  over  all  Lands. 

Mighty  Power 

Was  concentrated  at  the  points  of 
his  hands 

To  widen  the  Boundaries  of  Egypt. 
\The  Family  Name.\ 

The  Son  of  the  Sun 
Thutmes  ..... 
Who  gives  Life  of  all  Stability  and 
Purity 

To-day  as  ever  after. 

EAST  SIDE. 

TEXT  OF  THE  CENTRE  LINE. 

[Name  of  the  Royal  Standard .] 

Horus:  the  Strong  Bull, 

Who  manifested  himself  as  King  in 
Thebai'd. 

[  The  Crown  Tit  lei] 

The  Lord  of  the  Diadems  of  the 
Vulture  and  of  the  Serpent. 
His  Kingdom  is  as  lasting  as  is 
the 

Sun  in  the  Heavens. 

[  The  Family  Name ,  enclosed  in  an 
elliptical  circle  and  containing  a 
curious  allusion  to  the  meaning  of 
the  name  Thutmes. ] 

The  Creature  of  the  God  Turn, 
Lord  of  the  City  of  On, 

The  Son  who  came  out  from  his 
Belly,  and  whom 
The  God  Thut  formed.  [Mes.] 
They  created  him  in  the  Grand 
Hall  [of  the  Temple  of  On] 
After  the  model  of  their  own  body, 
Being  conscious  of  the  Great  Deeds 
he  was  to  accomplish  : 

He,  whose  Kingdom  should  be  of 
long  duration. 

[The  Official  Title.] 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt, 

Ra-men-Kheper, 

Friend  of  the  Great  God  Turn,  and  of 
The  Circle  of  his  Divinities. 

He  who  gives 

Life  of  all  Stability  and  Purity 
To-day  as  ever  after. 


TEXT  OF  THE  RIGHT-HAND  LINE. 

In  the  face  of 

The  Entire  World  Assembled. 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds : 
Ra-user-ma, 

The  Chosen  one  of  the  Sun. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun  •  Ramessu 
Meri-amun, 

Who  gives  Life  of  all  Stability 
and  Purity 
To-day  as  ever  after. 


TEXT  OF  THE  RIGHT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus :  the  Strong  Bull, 

Friend  of  the  Sun-God  Ra, 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt. 

Ra-user-ma, 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

He  has  taken  possession  of  the  Two 
Worlds. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu  Meri- 
amun, 

A  handsome  and  Kind-Hearted 
Youth ; 

He  is  as  resplendent  as  is 

The  Solar  Orb  in  the  Horizon. 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds ; 
Ra-user-ma, 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu 
Meri-amun. 

The  Reflected  Splendor  of 

The  God  Turn 

Who  gives  Life. 


Archaology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


67 


TEXT  OF  THE  LEFT-HAND  LINE. 

[Sb  effaced  as  to  be  illegible .] 


TEXT  OF  THE  LEFT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus :  the  Strong  Bull, 

Friend  of  Justice. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt ; 

The  Son  of  the  Sun  ; 

The  Creature  of  the  Gods, 

Who  [has  taken  possession  of]  the 
Two  Worlds. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ra-user-ma 
Meri-amun  ; 

The  Friend  of  the  City  of  the  Sun; 

Never  before  was  done  what  he  did 
for  the  City  of  On. 

His  Memory  is  forever  fixed  in  the 
City  of  Turn  [Pitum\. 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds :  Ra- 
user-ma. 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun  [ Ramessu  Meri- 
amun ] 

Who  gives  Life. 


SOUTH  SIDE. 

TEXT  OF  THE  CENTRE  LINE. 

[. Name  of  the  Royal  Standard .] 

Horus  :  the  Strong  Bull, 

Friend  of  the  Sun-God  Ra. 

[  The  Official  Tit  lei] 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 

Egypt, 

Ra-men-kheper  .  .  .  .  . 


WEST  SIDE. 

TEXT  OF  THE  CENTRE  LINE. 

[ Name  of  the  Royal  Standard .] 

Horus :  the  Strong  Bull, 

Who  manifested  himself  as  King  in 
the  Thebai'd. 

[ Official  Title. ] 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt : 

Ra-men-kheper, 

Who  caused 
Great  Rejoicing 

In  the  House  of  the  Sun-God  Ra — 
[  That  is  Heliopolis. \ 

Who  created 

The  Beauty  of  the  Sun  Disk  ; 

The  Day  when  for  the  first  time 
was  made  .  .  .  .  . 


TEXT  OF  THE  RIGHT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus  :  the  Strong  Bull, 

The  Companion  and  Friend  of  Jus¬ 
tice. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt : 

Ra-user-ma  : 

Lord  of  the  Periods  of  Thirty  years, 

Like  his  Father,  the  God  Ptah  ; 

Lord  of  the  White  Wall  \name  of 
the  Citadel  of  Memphis ]. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun:  Ramessu 
Meri-amun. 

The  God  :  the  Divine  Being. 

The  Terrestrial  Star  of  the  City  of 
the  Sun-God  Ra, 

Which  is  sustained  by  the  deeds  of 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds :  Ra- 
user-ma. 

The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu 
Meri-amun, 

Who  gives  Life. 


TEXT  OF  THE  RIGHT-HAND  LINE. 

Horus :  the  Strong  Bull, 

The  Son  of  the  Sun-God  Ra. 

The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt 
Ra-user-ma 

The  Chosen  one  of  the  Sun. 

The  Golden  Horus: 

Rich  in  Years  ;  Grand  in  Victories. 
The  Son  of  the  Sun :  Ramessu 
Meri-amun.  .  .  .  . 

The  Lord  of  the  Two  Worlds 
Ra-user-ma 

The  Chosen  One  of  the  Sun, 

The  Son  of  the  Sun  \Ramessu  Meri- 
amun\ 

.  .  .  .  Like  the  Sun. 


“  At  the  foot  of  the  four  faces  of  the  obelisk  there  is  a  horizontal  line  of  text  which  reads :  ‘  May  he  live  ! 
The  gracious  god :  Ra-user-ma — The  chosen  one  of  the  sun — The  gracious  god — Ramessu  Meri-amun.’  ” 

In  explanation  of  the  above  it  is  well  to  “  remark  that  all  Egyptian  kings  had  five  distinct  appellations, 
which  were  always  preceded  by  five  titles.”  These  titles  are  : 

1.  The  Name  of  the  Royal  Standard ,  preceded  and  indicated  by  the  words,  “  Horus,”  or  “  Horus,  the  Sun.” 

2.  The  Official  Title ,  preceded  by  the  words,  “  The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,”  or  “  Lord  of  the 
Two  Worlds.” 

3.  The  Crown  Title,  preceded  by  the  words,  “  The  Lord  of  the  Diadems  of  the  Vulture  and  of  the  Serpent 
Ouraios.” 


68 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

4.  The  Family  Name,  indicated  by  the  expression,  “  The  Son  of  the  Sun.” 

5.  The  Title  of  “  The  Victorious,”  preceded  by  the  words,  “  The  Golden  Horus.” 

On  the  north,  west,  and  east  faces,  near  the  bottom,  is  the  cartouch  of  Usorken  I,  in  much  smaller 
characters  than  the  other  inscriptions. 

Dr.  Brugsch  expresses  the  opinion  that  Ramses  II  was  the  father,  by  adoption,  of  Moses.  He  states  that  of 
the  names  of  Thothmes  III,  Ramses  II,  and  Usorken  I,  inscribed  on  the  New  York  obelisk,  “  each  marks  a 
distinct  historical  period.”  Thothmes  III,  the  period  of  expansion  and  conquest  about  sixteen  centuries  before 
Christ;  Ramses  II,  the  Sesostris  of  the  Greek  writers,  who  lived  about  three  centuries  later,  the  period  of  Egypt’s 
greatest  power  and  splendor;  and  Usorken  I,  who  reigned  about  933  B.  C.,  the  period  of  decline.  Usorken 
was  probably  of  Assyrian  origin. 

HISTORICAL.1 

The  obelisk  now  standing  in  Central  Park  is  of  the  fine  syenite  of  the  Assouan  quarries.  It 
was  formerly  the  companion  of  the  obelisk  now  standing  on  the  Thames  Embankment.  The  pair 
were  originally  erected  by  Thothmes  III  [xviii  dynasty,  sole  reign,  B.  C.  1591-1 565,  Lepsius],  before 
the  famous  Temple  of  the  Sun  at  Heliopolis,  the  New  York  obelisk  being  then  the  eastern  of  the 
two.  According  to  Birch,2  they  were  the  second  pair  erected  by  Thothmes  III  at  this  temple ;  the 
obelisk  now  at  Constantinople,  together  with  its  former  mate,  being  the  first  pair. 

Pliny,  who  seems  to  give  names  to  the  Egyptian  kings  according  to  his  own  fancy,  says  that 

these  obelisks  were  the  work  of  Mesphres.  “  There  are  two  other  obelisks  which  were  in  Caesar’s 
Temple  in  Alexandria,  near  the  harbor  there,  42  cubits  in  height,  and  originally  erected  by  order  of 
King  Mesphres.”  “  Mesphres,  who  reigned  in  the  City  of  the  Sun,  was  the  first  who  erected  one 
of  these  obelisks,  being  warned  to  do  so  in  a  dream  ;  indeed,  there  is  an  inscription  to  this  effect  ;  for 
the  sculptures  and  figures  which  we  still  see  thereon  are  no  other  than  Egyptian  figures.”  [Pliny,  Nat. 
Hist.,  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14.]  It  is  needless  to  say  that  no  such  dream-record  as  this  appears  on  the  New 
York  obelisk.  By  Mesphres,  Pliny  means,  according  to  Birch,  King  Mephres  or  Mesphra-Thuthmosis 
of  Manetho’s  xviii  dynasty;  that  is,  Thothmes  I.  Parker,  p.  21,  would  identify  this  name  of  Mesphres 
with  that  of  Pepi  Merira.  Cooper,  however,  with  more  charity  for  Pliny’s  minute  acquaintance  with 
Egyptian  chronology,  concludes  that  he  intended  Thothmes  III. 

Near  the  modern  village  of  Matariyeh,  five  miles  from  Cairo,  is  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  of 
Heliopolis  ;  the  only  Egyptian  city,  according  to  Osburn  (Mon.  Hist,  of  Egypt),  which  is  mentioned 
in  the  book  of  Genesis  (Gen.  xli,  45).3  Nothing  now  remains  of  the  city  except  the  standing  obelisk, 
and  rude  mounds,  the  ruins  of  crude  brick  walls,  enclosing,  says  Mariette,  a  space  4,56o  ft.  by  3,56o 

ft.,  and  marking  the  vast  open  space  or  square  in  front  of  the  ancient  temple.  But,  in  the  days 

of  Egypt’s  glory,  it  was  a  place  of  the  highest  renown.  It  was  preeminently  the  “  City  of  the 

Sun,”  the  “abode  of  Ra”  (Helios);  it  was  also  called  “the  home  of  the  Phoenix”  (Bennu),  and  An, 
whence  its  Hebrew  name  On.4  Here  was  the  far-famed  Temple  of  the  Sun,  where  originated  the 
profound  learning  of  the  Egyptians.  Hither  came,  as  to  the  most  sacred  place,  pilgrims  from  all  parts 
of  the  kingdom.  The  greatest  Pharaohs  added  to  their  titles  that  of  “  Prince  of  Heliopolis.” 

Wilkinson  calls  Heliopolis  the  university  of  Egypt,  where  were  taught  the  speculative  and  mystic 
forms  of  Egyptian  theology,  philosophy,  astronomy,5 6  and  all  branches  of  practical  science  as  then 
known.  Here  flourished  a  college  of  learned  priests  ;  a  school  of  higher  renown,  according  to  Ebers, 
than  even  those  of  Sais,  Memphis,  or  Thebes.  In  this  school  Moses  is  said  to  have  studied.  Herodotus 

1  Kircher,  CEdipus,  vol.  iii,  p.  339.  Norden,  pi.  viii,  ix.  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,  vol.  v,  pi.  32,  33.  Lenormant, 
Mus£e,  pi.  xxix,  xxx.  Denon,  pi.  ix.  Champollion,  Monuments,  t.  iv,  pi.  ccccxliv.  Burton,  Exc.  Hier.,  pi.  li. 

2  Parker,  p.  43.  3  See  Gen.  xvi,  7.  Shur,  which  Gesenius  thinks  to  be  Suez. 

*  On  (Gen.  xli,  45).  In  Jeremiah  xliii,  13,  it  is  called  “  Beth-shemesh,”  /.  e.,  “the  abode  of  the  sun,” — a  name  which  the 

Septuagint  here  employs  as  the  name  of  the  temple.  (W.  Smith,  Diet,  of  the  Bible.)  The  Egyptians  called  the  city  Annu, 

i.  e.,  “  pointed  columns,”  or  “  obelisks.”  (Brugsch.) 

6  Astronomy  and  all  branches  of  science  were  studied  here. —  Wilkinson. 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


has  written  its  praises.  Hither  came  Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  Eudoxus  for  Egyptian  training.  It  is 
thought  that  from  the  records  preserved  in  the  temple,  Manetho  collected  his  history  of  the  ancient 
Egyptian  kings.1  At  the  period  of  the  Ptolemies,  Alexandria  became  the  centre  of  learning ;  in  Strabo’s 
time,  although  the  houses  once  occupied  by  the  priestly  scholars  were  still  standing,  the  once  famous 
college  of  Heliopolis  was  in  ruins. 

The  renowed  Temple  of  the  Sun  at  Heliopolis  was  consecrated  to  the  special  worship  of  Ra, 
the  mid-day  sun,  the  god  of  creating  light  and  life  ;  and  thence,  secondarily,  to  the  honor  of  those 
deities  whom  the  Egyptian  mythology  brought  into  the  closest  connections  with  him,  viz.  :  Turn,  the 
setting  sun,  the  god  of  the  promised  resurrection  ;  Harmachis,  the  rising  sun,  the  child-sun,  the 
awakening  of  life  out  of  darkness  ;  Thoth,  the  deity  of  the  moon,  the  god  of  measures  and  of  the 
sciences  ;  Osiris  and  Isis,  the  children  of  space  (Nut)  and  time  (Seb), — Osiris,  the  principle  of 
quickening  life, — Isis  (Isis  Hathor),  the  earth,  as  receptive  of  this  quickening ;  and,  with  these,  their 
son,  the  avenging  Horus,  the  representative  of  the  final  triumph  of  life  and  truth  over  death  and 
falsehood,  Typhon. 

Thus,  at  the  great  temple  of  Ra,  the  religious  belief  of  the  Egyptians  clustered  its  deities  like 
planets  around  the  central  sun,  and  in  its  combination  of  their  several  rites  of  worship  with  reference 
to  Ra  as  the  supreme,  gave  peculiar  fame  and  splendor  to  the  shrine  of  Heliopolis.  “  Proud 
Pharaohs,”  says  Ebers,  “  who  at  Memphis  confined  themselves  to  offering  a  sacrifice  to  the  deity  Ptah, 
here,  at  Heliopolis,  submitted  in  the  Temple  of  the  Sun  to  many  ceremonies,  and  were  initiated  into 
the  mysteries  of  the  god.” 

The  sacred  animals  venerated  at  this  temple  were  the  white  or  light-colored  bull  Mnevis  (sacred 
to  Ra,  as  Apis  was  sacred  to  Ptah),  and  lions  of  light-colored,  lustrous  skin, — sacred  to  Ra.  Here, 
too,  was  the  fabled  home  of  the  Phoenix,  which  dies  in  fire  to  rise  again,  and  brings  its  ashes  to 
Heliopolis  once  in  every  five  hundred  years.  The  Egyptians  called  the  Phoenix,  Bennou ;  in  many 
inscriptions  the  temple  is  called  the  “house  of  Bennou.” 

There  is  no  record  of  the  first  building  of  this  temple,  so  great  is  its  antiquity.2  With  the  single 
exception  of  the  shrine  of  Ptah  at  Memphis,  it  was  the  most  ancient  temple  of  all  Egypt.  “  The 
building  was  as  old,”  says  Ebers,  “  as  the  Egyptian  adoration  of  the  sun.”3  It  was  so  old  that  the 
most  venerable  myths  had  had  time  to  gather  around  its  ancient  walls  and  take  up  their  abode  in 
its  inmost  sanctuary.  In  the  wars  of  the  gods,  the  Temple  of  the  Sun  had  given  asylum  to  the  deities ; 
Typhon  and  Horus,  each  wounded  by  the  other,  had  been  healed  in  the  “  great  hall  ”  of  Heliopolis. 

An  ancient  Egyptian  manuscript  now  preserved  in  the  Berlin  Museum  informs  us  that  the  temple 
was  partly  rebuilt  by  Amenhat  I,  of  the  xii  dynasty,  and  finished  by  his  son,  Usortesen  I.  An 
interesting  manuscript  on  parchment,  procured  by  Brugsch  at  Thebes  in  1 858,  and  now  at  Berlin, 
records  that  Usortesen,  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign,  assembled  the  chief  officers  of  his  court  to 
give  their  counsel  as  to  erecting  worthy  buildings  to  the  sun-god.  The  monarch’s  address  dwells 
on  the  importance  of  monuments  dedicated  to  the  deities, — monumuents  which  alone  can  make  the 
memory  of  a  ruler  eternal  ;  the  counsellors  unanimously  applaud  the  intentions  of  their  sovereign  ; 
then  follows  the  account  of  the  solemn  laying  the  foundations  of  the  proposed  structures  by  the  king 
himself. 

The  existence  of  the  present  obelisk  of  Heliopolis,  says  Brugsch,  proves  that  the  building,  under 
Usortesen,  had  reached  the  great  pylons,  before  which  it  was  customary  to  erect  these  giant  shafts.4 

It  was  the  daughter  of  a  priest  of  this  temple,— the  “  Priest  of  On,”  Potiphera,  i.  e.}  dedicated 

1  Long,  Egypt.  Antiq.,  i,  26.  This  history  of  Manetho  is  lost,  except  his  lists  of  kings. 

2  Cooper  (p.  22)  says  it  was  “founded”  [built]  by  kings  of  the  first  six  dynasties. 

3  According  to  Manetho,  the  bull  Mnevis  was  first  worshipped  here  in  the  reign  of  Kaiechos,  the  second  king  of  the  ii 
dynasty.  W.  Smith,  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  and  Manetho  in  Wilkinson  i,  18. 

*  Brugsch,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  i,  130. 


70 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

to  Ra,  that  the  Pharaoh,  who  according  to  Rawlinson,  was  of  the  xvii  dynasty  and  the  last  of  the 
Hyksos,  gave  Joseph  to  wife.1 

The  great  conqueror  and  builder,  Thothmes  III  (xviii  dynasty),  restored  or  enlarged  the  ancient 
temple.  An  inscription  referred  to  by  Brugsch 2  shows  that  he  surrounded  it  with  a  stone  enclosure  in 
the  forty-seventh  year  of  his  reign.  But,  especially,  he  adorned  it  with  new  and  splendid  obelisks  ;  of 
these  three  now  exist,  though  far  removed  from  their  original  site,  viz.  :  the  large  obelisk  at  Constanti¬ 
nople,  the  obelisk  of  London,  and  the  obelisk  of  New  York.3 

Around  the  shrine  of  the  sun-god  were  erected  many  other  obelisks.4  According  to  Ebers,  the 
greater  part  of  the  obelisks  removed  by  the  Caesars  to  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Constantinople,  were 
from  Heliopolis.  Besides  the  monoliths  of  Constantinople,  London,  and  New  York,  there  are  four 
others  still  existing  which  originally  stood  at  Heliopolis,  viz.  :  three  in  Rome,  the  obelisk  of  the  Piazza 
del  Popolo,  that  of  the  Vatican,  and  that  of  Monte  Citorio  ;  and  one  in  Florence,  that  of  the  Boboli 
Gardens.  The  inscription  on  the  London  monolith  mentions  “  the  house  of  the  Phoenix.”  The 
inscription  on  the  shaft  of  the  Piazza  del  Popolo  speaks  of  the  king  (Seti  I)  as  “  filling  Heliopolis  with 
obelisks.”  In  the  inscription  of  King  Piankhi  (F.  C.  Cook’s  translation,  Records  of  the  Past,  ii,  98) 

the  temple  is  called  “  the  temple  of  obelisks.”  Even  so  late  as  the  time  of  Abd-el-Lateef  there  were 

so  many  remains  of  these  monuments  that  he  speaks  of  them  as  “  innumerable.” 

Seti  I  (xix  dynasty)  was  also  a  builder  or  restorer  of  the  temple  of  Heliopolis,  and  erected,  at  least, 
a  pair  of  obelisks,  of  which  one,  that  of  the  Piazza  del  Popolo,  still  exists. 

A  very  remarkable  model  of  the  Temple  of  the  Sun,  bearing  the  cartouch  of  Seti  I  (see  Plate 
xxxii),  discovered  at  a  village  near  Cairo  in  1875,  is  now  in  the  possession  of  the  author  of  this 
volume.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  most  ancient  architectural  model,  or  plan,  known  to  exist,  and  has 
been  pronounced  by  Professor  Brugsch  to  be  the  most  important  historical  discovery  made  in  Egypt  for 
many  years. 

The  model  is  of  granite  ;  it  is  44.25  inches  long,  34-65  inches  wide,  and  9.25  inches  deep.  It 

shows  the  double  flight  of  steps  ascending  to  the  level  of  the  sanctuary  :  on  either  side  these  steps 
are,  first,  sockets  in  which  were  formerly  set  models  of  the  great  sphinxes  guarding  the  entrance ; 
higher  up,  on  either  side,  are  marked  the  positions  of  the  statues  of  the  king  and  of  two  great  obelisks. 
At  the  top  of  the  steps  are  again,  on  either  side,  sockets  for  two  smaller  sphinxes.  Beyond  these 
are  marked  the  positions  of  the  two  great  pylons  ;  in  front  of  these  pylons  were  set  tall  masts  or 

flag-staffs  ;  on  the  inner  sides  of  the  pylons  are  seen  holes  marking  the  place  of  the  double  gate 

of  the  sanctuary,  beyond  which  monarchs  and  priests  alone  could  pass.  Farther  on  are  shown  the 
positions  of  the  great  walls  enclosing  the  sanctuary,  within  which  were  preserved  the  morning  and 

the  evening  barges  of  the  god. 

On  three  sides  or  edges  of  the  model  are  sculptures  representing  the  monarch  presenting  offerings 
to  the  deity,  and  inscriptions  in  finely  cut  hieroglyphics.  The  signification  of  the  separate  hieroglyphs 
has  been  given  by  Brugsch,  but  the  arrangement  or  collocation  of  words  in  the  following  translation 
is  as  given  by  Hon.  W.  J.  Shaw,  of  San  Francisco  (see  his  article  in  the  Overland  Monthly ,  May, 
1875):  “This  good  model  in  stone,  he  (the  king)  has  made  of  the  temple  illuminated  by  the  two 

spheres.  Horus,  the  Sun,  his  father,  to  this  moment  has  made  the  gods  gracious.  The  two  tall 

slender  towers  are  made  of  mest  stone.  Of  metal  are  the  great  doors.  Of  white  stone  are  the  two 
pylons,  but  grayish  in  their  external  appearance.  Joyous  were  the  spirits  of  heaven  at  Heliopolis ! 

1  But  Wilkinson  (1.  30)  says  that  Joseph  arrived  in  Egypt  during  the  reign  of  Usortesen  I. 

2  Brugsch,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  i,  403. 

3  Brugsch  (i,  404)  says  that  Thothmes  III  erected  obelisks  before  the  great  wings  of  the  temple.  According  to  an 
inscription  in  the  Temple  of  Assassuf,  the  height  of  a  pair  was  108  Egyptian  ells,  or  186  feet. 

4  Pliny  (Nat.  Hist.,  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14)  states  that  the  first  obelisk  was  erected  by  Mesphres,  at  Heliopolis,  and  that 
Sesosthes  erected  four  in  the  same  city. 


ARTOTYPE 


HARHOUN  &  BIERSTADT  N  Y 


ANTIQUE  MODEL  OF  THE  TEMPLE  OF  ON  (HELIOPOLIS). 


Copyright, 


1 88 1  by  H  H  GORRINGE,  New  York. 


Plate  XXXII 


7 1 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

At  Heliopolis  the  sphere  of  heaven  is  illuminated!  The  two  obelisks  are  of  polished  porphyry  (?). 
Gifts  were  presented :  first,  to  Ra-Hor-Chuti 1 ;  secondly,  to  Turn,  master  of  the  two  worlds  of 
Heliopolis  ;  thirdly  to  Khaparah  in  his  barge,  and  to  Horus,  the  Sun  of  the  two  illuminated  spheres, 
the  good  god,  the  grand  master  of  the  heavens  in  the  midst  of  his  celestial  palace.  The  King,  part 
of  the  Sun,  the  Sun  stable  in  justice,  arrived  and  worshipped  thee,  O  Turn  !  and  presented  incense  to 
thee,  and  green  cosmetic  for  the  eyes,  and  oil  coming  from  the  eye  of  Horus.  The  King  (cartouch 
of  Seti  I),  part  of  the  Sun,  the  Sun  stable  in  justice,  came  and  adored  thee,  O  Turn,  and  thee,  O 
Khaparah,  and  thee,  O  Horus,  sun  of  the  two  illuminated  regions,  and  filled  you  all  with  adorations.” 
According  to  Shaw  the  following  inscription  also  appears  :  “  The  gracious  god  (Seti,  I)  has  made 

this  monument  to  his  father  the  Sun,  to  Turn,  and  to  Khaparah.  He  has  made  to  his  father  a  splendid 
sanctuary,  comparable  to  the  sphere  of  heaven,  to  the  place  of  repose,  to  the  place  of  the  two  regions, 
and  of  the  masters  of  Hun  ;  and  it  is  united  in  the  interior  like  Turn  to  the  heavens.” 2 

In  the  time  of  Ramses  III  (xix  dynasty)  the  possessions  of  the  temple  were  immense.  The 
celebrated  Harris  papyrus  records  the  costly  presents  of  this  monarch  to  the  shrine,  and  his  restorations 
at  Heliopolis  :  “  I  built  its  temples  which  were  gone  to  decay  ;  I  sculptured  their  gods  in  their  secret 

shapes,  of  gold,  silver,  and  all  precious  stone,  an  eternal  work.  I  made  thee  great  statues  of  granite, 

figures  of  Turn.”3  The  number  of  priests,  together  with  their  subordinates  and  servants,  attached 
to  this  temple  is  estimated,  in  a  census  made  under  this  reign,  at  no  less  than  12,913. 

A  remarkable  account  of  a  royal  visit  to  this  shrine,  and  showing  how  far  up  the  Nile  its  fame 

had  ascended,  is  given  in  the  “  Inscription  of  Piankhi  Mer-Amon,”  discovered  in  1863  at  Gebel  Barkal, 
the  site  of  the  ancient  Napata,  in  Ethiopia.4 *  Piankhi,  who  about  go  B.  C.,s  obtained  sovereign  power 
at  Napata,  and  established  thence  his  suzerainty  over  all  Egypt,  descended  the  Nile,  subduing  in  battle 
and  in  siege  the  native  Egyptian  princes  who  ventured  to  resist  his  supremacy,  until,  flushed  with 
victory  on  victory,  he  approached  the  sacred  spot  of  Heliopolis.  Although  the  account  of  this  monarch’s 
visit  to  the  Temple  of  the  Sun  has  only  preserved  to  us  a  description  of  the  edifice  in  the  most  general 
terms,  yet  the  account  is  enough  to  give  us  an  idea  of  the  great  importance  attached  by  the  Egyptians 
to  this  famous  shrine.  Piankhi’s  visit  is  described  as  follows  :6  “  When  he  approached  in  order  to 
enter  the  temple  of  the  Sun-God  Ra,  the  chief  of  the  temple  greeted  him  with  respectful  greeting,  and 
the  singing  priests  read  the  holy  words  to  keep  evil  from  the  King.  And  the  King  completed  the 
consecration,  putting  on  the  fillets,  and  purifying  himself  by  incense  and  holy  water.  Then  he  received 
the  wreaths  of  the  Benben  chamber7  and  brought  them  forward,  mounting  the  steps  to  the  great 
window8  to  behold  Ra  in  his  Benben  chamber.9  The  King  stood  there  all  alone  ;  he  drew  back 
the  bolts,  opened  the  doors,  and  beheld  his  father  Ra  in  the  splendid  Benben  chamber,  and  the 
morning  bark  of  Ra  and  the  evening  bark  of  Turn.  After  this  he  shut  the  doors,  laid  sealing-earth 
upon  them,  and  pressed  upon  it  his  own  royal  seal,  thus  commanding  the  priests  :  ‘  I  have  set  my 

1  Harmachis  (?). 

2  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  some  eminent  Egyptologist  may  be  able  to  furnish  a  more  satisfactory  translation  from  the 
plate. 

3  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  vi,  p.  53. 

4  Translation  in  Brugsch’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  vol.  i,  p.  128 ;  also  in  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ii,  p.  79  ;  and  Mariette, 

Notice  des  Principaux  Monuments,  etc.,  p.  295. 

6  Rawlinson’s  Egypt,  ii,  437.  Brugsch  [on  Card]  says  8th  or  9th  century  B.  C.  (Cook,  in  Records  of  the  Past,  ii,  79, 
says  xxii  [2 2d]  dynasty  ;  not  so,  apparently,  according  to  Bsedeker’s  Egypt,  p.  91.) 

8  Brugsch,  i,  128. 

7  Cook,  Records  of  the  Past,  ii,  98,  translates  this:  Wreaths  “from  the  Temple  of  Obelisks.”  Note  by  Brugsch:  “The 
word  Benben,  in  the  old  Egyptian,  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  Greek  word  pyramidion.  The  Benben,  accordingly,  had  the 
form  of  a  small  pyramid,  and  was  venerated  in  the  temple  of  On,  with  devotion  like  that  paid  to  the  Omphalos  in  the 
temple  of  Delphi.” 

8  “  The  great  shrine.”  Cook. 


’  “  Temple  of  Obelisks.”  Cook. 


72 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk . 

seal ;  no  other  of  any  kings  shall  any  more  enter  in.’  While  he  stood  there  they  prostrated 
themselves  before  his  majesty,  saying  :  ‘  O  thou,  always  increasing  in  empire,  may  affliction  never 
come  to  the  divine  Horus,  the  friend  of  the  town  of  On.’  ” 

More  than  seven  centuries  after  this  visit  of  King  Piankhi,  the  Greek  geographer  Strabo1  wrote  a 
description  of  this  temple  as  a  type  of  all  Egyptian  temple  buildings  (Brugsch).  “  Heliopolis,”  he  says, 
“  has  an  ancient  temple  constructed  after  the  Egyptian  manner,  bearing  many  proofs  of  the  madness 
and  sacrilegious  acts  of  Cambyses,  who  did  very  great  injury  to  the  temples,  partly  by  fire,  partly  by 
violence.  In  this  manner  he  injured  the  obelisks,  two  of  which  that  were  not  entirely  spoiled  were 
transported  to  Rome.  The  plan  of  the  temples  is  as  follows : — At  the  entrance  into  the  temenos 
(sacred  enclosure)  is  a  paved  floor,  in  breadth  about  a  plethrum3  or  even  less;  its  length  is  three  or 
four  times  as  great,  and  in  some  instances  even  more.  This  part  is  called  the  dromos,  and  is 

mentioned  by  Callimachus  ;  ‘  This  is  the  dromos,  sacred  to  Anubis.’  Throughout  the  whole  length 

are  placed  on  each  side  stone  sphinxes,  at  the  distance  of  twenty  cubits  or  a  little  more  from  each 
other,  so  that  there  is  one  row  of  sphinxes  on  the  right  hand,  and  another  on  the  left.  Next  after 
the  sphinxes  is  a  large  propylon,  then  on  proceeding  farther  another  propylon,  and  then  another. 
Neither  the  number  of  the  propyla  nor  of  the  sphinxes  is  determined  by  any  rule.  They  are 
different  in  different  temples,  as  well  as  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  dromos.  Next  to  the  propyla 
is  the  naos,  which  has  a  large  and  considerable  pronaos ;  the  sanctuary  in  proportion ;  there  is  no 
statue,  at  least  not  in  human  shape,  but  a  representation  of  some  of  the  brute  animals.  On  each  side 
of  the  pronaos  project  what  are  called  the  wings.  These  are  two  walls  of  equal  height  with  the  naos. 
At  first  the  distance  between  them  is  a  little  more  than  the  breadth  of  the  foundation  of  the  naos. 
As  you  proceed  onward,  the  [base]  lines  incline  toward  one  another  till  they  approach  within  fifty  or 
sixty  cubits.  These  walls  have  large  sculptured  figures,  very  much  like  the  Tyrrhenian  (Etruscan)  and 
very  ancient  works  among  the  Greeks.” 3 

The  precise  history  of  the  decline  of  Heliopolis  is  not  known.  Mariette  raises,  without  answering, 
the  question:  When  did  this  decline  begin?  The  fury  of  Cambyses  [B.  C.  525-52 1]  did  not  entirely 
destroy  it;  for  although  Strabo,  who  visited  Egypt  B.  C.  24,  found  it  a  deserted  city,  yet  the  temple 

could  be  seen  and  described  in  all  its  parts.  So  late  as  the  time  of  Abd-el-Lateef,  who  wrote  in 

A.  D.  1201  (De  Sacy),  the  Arabian  physician  could  still  speak  of  it  as  a  small  city,  with  ruined  but  still 
standing  walls,  which  it  was  easy  to  see  were  the  walls  of  a  temple  ;  for  there  were  those  “large  and 
terrible  idols  of  hewn  stone,  each  of  which  is  thirty  cubits  high,  with  limbs  in  proportion.”  The  gate 
of  the  city— perhaps  the  pylon  of  the  temple  described  by  Strabo — was  still  preserved.  The  figures 
and  fragments  seen  by  Abd-el-Lateef  were  covered  with  reliefs  and  hieroglyphics.  “  There  is  hardly 
a  stone,”  he  says,  “  without  writing,  or  sculpture,  or  figures.”  What  has  become,  asks  Ebers,  of 
these  enormous  quantities  of  stone  which  were  seen  so  lately  by  Abd-el-Lateef?  and  his  answer  is 
that  they  have  been  carried  away  to  be  used  in  the  building  up  of  Cairo,  so  near  at  hand. 

Resuming  the  history  of  the  New  York  obelisk,  there  is  no  record  that  it  had  been  thrown 
down  by  Cambyses  when  he  destroyed  the  temple  of  Heliopolis,  but  it  is  very  probable  that  it  shared 
the  fate  of  many  others  and  lay  prostrate  among  the  ruins  for  five  centuries,  from  the  conquest  of 
the  Persians  in  the  sixth  century  before  Christ  to  that  of  the  Romans  in  the  first  century  B.  C. 

The  inscription  on  one  of  the  bronze  crabs  that  supported  the  New  York  obelisk  while  it  was 
in  Alexandria  (see  Plate  v)  is  the  only  record  that  exists  of  its  removal.  This  simply  states  that 
it  was  erected  at  Alexandria  in  the  eighth  year  of  Augustus  Caesar,  corresponding  to  22  B.  C.,  by  Pontius 
the  architect,  while  Barbarus  was  Prefect.  From  other  records  we  learn  that  the  pair,  hereafter  to  be 
known  as  the  London  and  New  York  obelisks,  were  placed  in  front  of  the  Caesareum  or  Temple  of 
the  Caesars. 


1  Visited  Egypt  B.C.  24. 


3  About  100  feet. 


3  Strabo,  bk.  xvii,  ch.  1. 


AH TO TV PS 


OOPY  RIGHT,  BY 


H.  GORRINGE.  1882 


i.  BISR8TADT.  N.  Y. 


A  rchceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


73 


This  temple  was  one  of  the  most  imposing  structures  of  ancient  Alexandria,  and  the  monument  of 
imperial  Roman  pride  and  power  in  the  newly  subdued  province  of  Egypt.  A  sacred  grove  surrounded 
it,  a  library  was  attached  to  it,  it  was  adorned  with  colonnades  and  enriched  with  paintings  and 
statues.  Here  divine  honors  were  paid  to  the  emperors,  even  in  their  own  lifetime.  The  building 
may  have  been  begun  by  Cleopatra,  after  the  birth  of  Cmsarion  ;  it  is  certain,  however,  that  it  was 
completed  by  the  Alexandrians  in  honor  of  Tiberius.  In  A.  D.  336,  during  an  insurrection  of  the 
pagans,  it  was  burned  down ;  at  a  later  period  it  was  rebuilt.  The  date  of  its  final  destruction  is 
unknown. 

In  modern  times  the  New  York  and  London  obelisks  have  been  known  as  Cleopatra’s  needles. 
Tradition  has  associated  them  with  that  famous  queen  of  Egypt,  whose  charms  are  said  to  have 
conquered  the  austere  Pompey,  the  immortal  Caesar,  and  the  brilliant  and  dissolute  Anthony,  but  failed 
to  captivate  the  crafty  Octavius.  Since  the  discovery  by  Mr.  Dixon  of  the  inscription  on  one  of  the 
bronze  crabs  that  supported  the  New  York  obelisk  in  Alexandria,  archaeologists  have  assumed  that  she 
had  nothing  to  do  with  removing  them,  as  she  had  been  dead  about  eight  years  when  they  were 
re-erected.  Traditions  cannot  be  disposed  of  by  assumptions  ;  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
Cleopatra  ordered  the  removal  of  the  obelisks.  Revolutions  and  invasions  during  the  latter  part  of  her 
reign  probably  delayed  their  re-erection.  After  her  death  there  was  no  one  but  the  conquerors  of  her 
kingdom  to  perpetuate  her  name.  Considering  the  times  and  circumstances,  it  was  natural  that  the 
Roman  Prefect  should  have  been  silent  as  to  their  removal.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  other  crabs 
bore  inscriptions  which  recorded  all  the  facts.  Until  some  proof  is  offered  that  the  tradition  is  without 
foundation,  it  would  seem  reasonable  to  accept  it  and  pay  our  tribute  to  a  beautiful  and  captivating 
woman  by  associating  her  name  with  two  of  the  world’s  most  interesting  monuments. 

The  accompanying  plate  is  a  portrait  photographed  directly  from  her  coins,  and  finished  as  any 
other  portrait  would  be  by  an  artist,  who  has  endeavored  to  be  faithful  to  the  original.  The  four  coins 
reproduced  below  the  portrait  were  found  under  the  obelisk  in  Alexandria  very  much  defaced  and 
corroded.  These  coins,  struck  from  different  dies,  manifestly  give  us  a  true  representation  of  Cleopatra’s 
profile. 

It  has  been  said  that  these  two  obelisks  were  used  at  Alexandria  as  gnomons,  and  reference  is 
made  to  a  concave  dial  found  at  the  base  of  one  of  these  shafts,  and  now  preserved  in  the  British 

Museum.  Sharpe  1  mentions  a  marble  dial,  now  in  the  British  Museum,  which  was  found,  as  he  says,  in 

front  of  the  temple  of  Alexandria  ;  it  was,  however,  constructed  for  a  horizontal  gnomon. 

Although  the  present  London  obelisk  had  fallen  from  its  pedestal,2  yet  our  obelisk  remained 
standing  where  the  Roman  engineers  had  placed  it,  before  the  Temple  of  Caesar,  until  the  time  of 
its  removal  to  New  York, — almost  exactly  nineteen  centuries.  Of  later  years  it  had  inclined  a  little 
from  the  vertical.  For  hundreds  of  years  it  was  a  landmark,  known  as  “  the  standing  obelisk,”  or,  par 
excellence ,  as  “  Cleopatra’s  Needle  ”  (it  is  so  called  by  Paul  Lucas,  Norden,  Baron  de  Tott,  the 
Description  de  1’  Egypte,  Lepsius,  Schnaase,  Sharpe,  Long,  etc.),  although  our  English  neighbors  have 
recently  appropriated  this  title  to  the  monolith  now  on  the  Thames  Embankment. 

For  the  earliest  notices  by  different  chroniclers  of  the  two  obelisks  at  Alexandria,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  account  elsewhere  given  of  the  London  obelisk.  The  Arabian  geographer  Edrisi,  whose 

book  was  completed  A.  D.  1 1 54,  not  merely  mentions  these  monoliths,  but  professes  to  give  also  a 

translation  of  their  hieroglyphs.  Among  the  many  fanciful  and  wholly  conjectural  interpretations 
which  were  given  to  hieroglyphic  inscriptions  before  the  days  of  Champollion,  none  is  so  extraordinary 
as  this.  The  following  is  taken  from  the  French  translation  of  Edrisi  by  Jaubert  :  “  Near  this  city 

(Alexandria)  are  seen  two  obelisks.  You  see  on  them  inscriptions  in  Syrian  characters.  The  author 

1  Sharpe’s  Hist,  of  Egypt,  vol.  ii,  p.  96,  together  with  his  explanation  of  Fig.  44,  in  vol.  ii,  p.  5. 

'  For  probable  date  of  its  fall  see  article  on  the  London  obelisk. 


74 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

of  the  Book  of  Marvels  states  that  they  were  cut  in  the  mountain  of  Tarim,  or  Iarim,  at  the  west 
of  Egypt.  You  read  on  one  of  them  as  follows  :  ‘  I,  Ia’mor  ben-Cheddad,  I  have  built  this  city, 
at  a  period  of  life  still  remote  from  old  age, — my  death  not  appearing  to  be  near  at  hand,  nor  my 
hair  blanched  with  years.  At  an  epoch  when  stones  were  as  clay,  when  men  knew  no  other  master 
than  Ia’mor,  I  have  built  the  colonnades  of  the  city,  I  have  brought  in  its  water,  I  have  planted  its 
trees ;  I  have  desired  to  surpass  the  ancient  kings  who  governed  it  in  my  construction  of  admirable 
monuments.  I  (therefore)  sent  Thabout  ben-Mara,  of  the  tribe  of  A’d,  and  Makdam  ben-el-O’mar 
ben-Abi  Reghal,  the  Thamoudite,  to  the  red-colored  mountain  of  Tarim.  They  took  thence  two  blocks 
of  stone,  which  they  brought  here  on  their  backs  ;  and  since  Thabout’s  side  was  broken,  I  gave  up 
to  his  service  the  people  of  my  kingdom.  Fedan  ben-Djaroud  el-Montefeki ;  erected  for  me  these 
shafts  in  a  time  of  prosperity.’  ” 

The  Arabian  physician  Abd-el-Lateef,  writing  in  1201  (De  Sacy),  merely  mentions  that  he  saw  the 
two  obelisks  near  the  sea.  From  this  time  a  long  period  elapses  without  any  especial  record  of  these 
shafts,  until  the  visit  of  Petrus  Bellonius  to  Alexandria  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  A.  D.1 

The  plate  of  Kircher,  published  in  i652,  shows  our  obelisk  as  square  and  unbroken  to  the 

base.  Paul  Lucas,  visiting  Alexandria  in  1714,  found  the  lower  portion  of  the  shaft  buried  to  the 

depth,  as  he  estimates,  of  twelve  feet.  In  1718,  the  French  Consul  Le  Maire  is  reported  to  have 
excavated  the  obelisk  to  its  pedestal.  Sicard,  in  his  Nouveaux  Memoires  (vol.  vii,  published  in  1729) 
found  the  base  concealed  from  view,  but  notes  that  the  shaft  rests  upon  a  granite  pedestal,  according 

to  the  account  given  by  Le  Maire.  Thomas  Shaw,  who  visited  Alexandria  about  1730,  found  the 

base  hidden  from  sight,  but  repeats  the  account  of  Le  Maire’s  excavation  :  According  to  Le  Maire, 
he  says,  “  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  was  not  square,  but  was  hemispherical  in  shape,  and  was  exactly 
fitted  into  a  socket  of  corresponding  form  cut  in  the  upper  surface  of  the  pedestal.” 

Norden,  travelling  in  Egypt  in  1737-38,  found  that  the  base  of  the  shaft  was  buried  in  the  earth. 
Pococke,  in  Egypt,  1737-39,  repeats  the  account  of  Le  Maire:  “It  has  been  found,”  he  says,  “by 
digging  under  ground  that  the  bottoms  of  the  obelisks  were  rounded  and  let  into  a  plinth,  as  the 

Egyptians  used  to  place  their  pillars.”  Dominique  Jauna,  in  his  history  published  in  1747,  reports 

that  the  pedestal  cannot  be  seen,  since  it  is  covered  with  sand.  Van  Egmont  and  Heyman2  state 

that  the  pedestal  of  the  standing  (New  York)  obelisk  is  “a  flat,  square  plinth,  eight  feet  on  each 

side  and  six  feet  in  depth,  formed  out  of  a  single  block  of  greyish  marble  or  granite,  which  projects 
fourteen  inches  on  every  side  beyond  the  base  of  the  obelisk.”  The  visit  of  Niebuhr,  in  1761,  adds 
nothing  to  our  information.  Baron  de  Tott  (Memoires  sur  les  Turcs,  1785)  found  that  the  base  of 
the  standing  (New  York)  obelisk  was  buried  out  of  sight,  but  judged  from  his  examination  of  the 
base  of  the  fallen  (London)  obelisk  that  each  shaft  originally  stood  upon  four  bronze  cubes  or  dies.3 
Zoega,  in  his  “De  Origine  et  Usu  Obeliscorum,”  published  in  1797,  has  in  mind  the  accounts  of 

Le  Maire  and  of  Baron  de  Tott,  when  he  says  that  it  is  probable  that  the  foot  of  the  shaft  is 

inserted  into  the  upper  surface  of  the  pedestal,  and  is  perhaps  made  firm  by  means  of  bronze  bars. 

The  authors  of  the  Description  de  1’  Egypte  report  that  the  shaft  had  been  excavated  to  its 
pedestal  by  M.  Conte,4  but  at  the  time  of  their  own  examination  it  was  again  buried  from  sight.  Their 

plate  shows  the  shaft,  with  its  pedestal,  resting  upon  three  steps  ;  no  bronze  crabs  are  to  be  seen, 

but  the  obelisk  is  represented  as  supported  or  propped  upon  its  pedestal  by  fragments  of  stone. 

1  See  description  of  London  obelisk.  2  Travels  translated  from  the  Dutch  and  published  at  London  in  1759. 

3  Mr.  Feuardent’s  comment  on  this  is  that  the  Baron  saw  the  remnants  of  the  metal  supports  attached  to  the  (London) 

obelisk,  and  that  they  were  probably  already  broken,  since  he  calls  them  “cubes”  or  “dies.” 

4 1  cannot  learn  at  what  date  M.  Cont£  excavated  the  pedestal.  I  have  gone  through  the  5  vols.  (9  vols.  in  5)  of  the 
text  of  the  Description,  etc.,  without  finding  a  word  on  Alexandria.  The  above  statements  are  taken  from  the  brief 
explanation  of  the  plates.  “  When  the  French  army  was  at  Cairo,  the  base  was  laid  bare  to  its  lowest  foundation.” — Long, 
Egyptian  Antiquities,  vol.  i,  300. 


75 


Archeology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 

Denon,1  in  his  Atlas,  published  1829,  presents  us  with  a  very  neat  and  draughtsman-like  delineation, 
in  which  the  pedestal  with  its  three  steps  appears  to  have  been  drawn  with  the  fidelity  of  an  eye¬ 
witness  ;  unfortunately,  however,  for  our  reliance  on  his  accuracy,  the  base  of  the  shaft  is  represented 
as  square,  unbroken  and  flush  with  the  surface  of  the  pedestal.  Lenormant,  in  his  Musee,  published  in 
1841,  copies  the  plate  of  the  Description  de  1’ Egypte,  and  adds  the  following:  “The  obelisk  rests 
upon  a  block  of  granite,  which  is  6  [Fr.]  ft.  1  in.  high,  and  8  ft.  10  in.  in  diameter  ;  this  pedestal 
is  itself  supported  by  three  granite  steps,  which  project  on  every  side.  The  base  of  the  monolith, 
its  corners  being  broken,  and  being  of  an  irregularly  rounded  form,  is  sustained  upon  its  pedestal  by 
a  sort  of  mason-work  (magonnerie),  which  compensates  for  its  inequalities  and  maintains  the  stability 
of  the  shaft.  This  masonry,  of  more  recent  date,  was  intended  to  replace  the  pUdouches  (bracket- 
pedestals)  of  bronze  'which  anciently  supported  the  monolith  while  isolating  it  from  its  pedestal.” 

At  the  time  of  the  removal  of  this  obelisk  to  New  York,  it  was  found  that,  at  some  period  since 
its  erection  at  Alexandria,  the  corners  at  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  had  been  broken  and  irregularly 
rounded.  Pontius  had  mounted  it  on  bronze  supports,  one  under  each  angle,  firmly  soldered  with 

lead  into  mortices  drilled  upward  into  the  shaft  and  downward  into  the  pedestal,  each  bar  projecting 

from  the  body  of  a  bronze  crab  about  16  inches  in  diameter.  One  of  these  crabs  had  been  seen 

in  position  by  Mr.  John  Dixon,  when,  on  the  removal  of  the  London  obelisk  from  Alexandria  in 

1877,  the  base  of  our  obelisk  was  exposed.  Two  of  the  crabs  only,  both  broken,  were  found  by 
the  author  of  this  volume  ;  the  other  two  had  at  some  previous  time  been  carried  off  by  plunderers. 
(See  Plate  v.)  Upon  the  only  remaining  claw  of  the  two  crabs  that  were  found  by  the  author  there 
are  two  inscriptions,  on  one  side  in  Greek,  on  the  other  in  Latin,  which  fix  the  date  of  the  re-erection 
in  Alexandria. 

The  only  satisfactory  explanation  that  has  been  given  of  the  adoption  of  the  form  of  a  crab  for 
the  metal  supports  on  which  the  Romans  mounted  the  obelisks  in  Alexandria,  is  that  of  Mr.  Gaston 
L.  Feuardent,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society  on  January 
1 5,  1881,  which  is  as  follows  : 

In  examining  these  interesting  fragments  of  bronze,  the  discovery  of  which  has  resulted  in  establishing  the 
true  history  of  the  obelisk  now  in  New  York,  as  well  as  that  of  the  one  in  London,  and  does  away  with  the 
legend  which  brought  the  name  of  Cleopatra  in  relation  with  their  erection  at  Alexandria,  we  cannot  help 
inquiring  into  the  reasons  that  led  the  Romans  to  select  the  “  crab  ”  to  support  the  venerable  monolith.  We 
know  that  the  ancients  were  most  careful  in  their  dealings  with  subjects  relating  to  religion,  and  every  detail  in 
their  figurative  works  had  meaning.  In  the  case  of  the  erection  of  the  Alexandrian  obelisk  in  the  Roman  time, 
prudence  must  have  been  observed  by  the  conquerors  in  order  not  to  offend  the  superstitions  of  the  vanquished 
Egyptians,  especially  when  they  related  to  a  class  of  monuments  which,  from  immemorial  time,  were  regarded  in 
Egypt  as  being  divine  symbols. 

Therefore,  we  may  feel  certain  that  the  “  crabs,”  placed  by  the  Romans  under  the  obelisk,  were  well  chosen 
to  give  satisfaction  both  to  the  Roman  and  Egyptian  peoples. 

I  am  astonished  that — since  they  were  first  mentioned  by  Dickson — no  European  archaeologist  has  attempted 
to  explain  why  they  were  placed  as  found. 

We  know,  however,  that  the  “crab”  is  constantly  brought  in  connection  with  the  worship  of  Apollo  in  ancient 
times,  and  we  remember  it  was  principally  at  the  beginning  of  the  Roman  Empire  that  Apollo-Phoebus  was 
distinctly  identified  with  the  “  Sun.”  So,  in  Egypt,  where  the  native  Pantheon  was  already  assimilated  to  the 
Greek  mythology,  it  must  have  been  regarded  as  quite  natural  that  an  attribute  of  Apollo,  the  Sun-God,  was 
employed  to  support  the  symbol  of  Ammon-Generator,  which  takes  a  material  shape  and  is  visible  in  the  form 
of  the  “  Sun.” 

Here  is  a  coin  of  Croton,  struck  in  the  sixth  century  B.  C.,  on  which  you  will  see  a  “  crab  ”  in  connection 
with  the  “tripod”  of  Apollo.  You  will  remember  also  the  fable  of  Hercules  killing  the  hydra,  where  the  “crab” 
is  represented  as  an  instrument  of  the  hatred  of  Apollo  against  Hercules.  The  demi-god  is  in  the  act  of  fighting 
the  hydra,  when  an  enormous  “  crab  ”  bites  him  at  the  heel ;  Hercules  kills  the  “  crab,”  which  is  placed  in 
heaven  by  Juno,  and  where  it  becomes  in  the  Zodiac,  the  sign  called  “  Cancer.”  Many  antique  monuments 
represent  the  relation  of  the  “  crab  ”  to  the  worship  of  Apollo,  and  to  come  back  to  our  favorite  pursuit, 


1  Denon  died  in  1825. 


76 


Archceology  of  the  New  York  Obelisk. 


“  Numismatics,”  there  is  that  beautiful  and  highly  artistic  coin  of  Amphipolis,  on  which  is  represented  the  bust 
of  Apollo,  full  face,  with  a  large  “  crab  ”  resting  on  his  neck. 

You  will  find  in  the  Revue  Numismatique ,  of  1863,  an  article  by  M.  Duprd,  in  which  that  coin  is  engraved; 
and  in  the  text,  the  scientific  development  of  this  question.  In  recalling  to  my  mind  that  article,  the  idea  came 
to  me  to  suggest  to  you  that  these  images  of  the  “  crabs  ”  are  one  more  proof  of  the  steady  and  constant  aim 
of  the  ancient  conquerors  of  the  world  to  try  to  assimilate  to  their  own  beliefs  the  religion  of  the  peoples  they  had 
vanquished,  and  by  so  doing,  to  make  them  more  easily  friendly  to  themselves;  while,  since  the  Mediaeval  times, 
the  idea  of  conquerors  has  always  been  to  impose  their  own  faith  on  the  less  fortunate  peoples;  and  perhaps  in 
this  remark  we  may  find  an  explanation  of  the  comparatively  facile  assimilation  of  annexed  countries  with  that 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 

For  convenience  of  the  reader  the  inscriptions  and  translation  are  reproduced  here  with  the  notes 
of  Mr.  Feuardent,  which  are  of  the  greatest  interest  ; — 

(Inscription.) 

ANNO  VIII 

AVGVSTI  CAESARIS 
BARBARVS  PRAEF 
AEGYPTI  POSVIT 
ARCHITECTANTE  PONTIO 

(  Translation .) 

In  the  eighth  year 
of  Augustus  Caesar 
Barbaras2  prefect 
of  Egypt  placed. 

Pontius  architect. 

» 

The  shaft  supported  on  the  bronze  crabs  had  been  placed  by  the  Roman  architect  Pontius  on 
a  plinth  of  syenite,  which  stood  on  a  base  with  three  steps  of  hard  limestone.  The  foundation  was 
a  mass  of  concrete  capped  with  masonry  up  to  the  level  of  the  pavement.  A  drawing  (Plate  xi) 
and  description  of  these  will  be  found  in  Chapter  I.  The  plinth  and  base  were  removed  to  New 
York  and  restored  exactly  as  they  were  constructed  by  Pontius  ;  the  only  instance,  with  the  exception 
of  the  small  obelisk  of  Corfe  Castle,  in  which  an  Egyptian  obelisk,  transported  from  its  home  in  Egypt, 
has  ever  been  accompanied  by  its  original  pedestal  and  steps.  There  is  no  positive  proof  that  these 
were  removed  with  the  obelisk  from  Fleliopolis  by  the  Romans,  but  there  are  good  reasons  for  such 
an  assumption. 

1  This  sign  is  like  the  Roman  letter  “L,”  and  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Graeco- Egyptian  inscriptions.  It  is  to 
be  found  in  the  coins  of  the  Lagide  dynasty  as  early  as  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Soter,  when  the  Latin  language  could  not 
yet  have  been  introduced  into  Egypt.  It  represents  the  first  letter  of  the  Greek  word  “vlvxafiavTO?  meaning,”  of  the 
year,”  for  it  is  the  genitive  of  the  word  “Avnafia?.”  It  is  supposed  to  be  a  demotic  ideographic  sign,  and  certainly 
represents  the  word  “  year.” — G.  L.  F. 

2  The  presence  of  the  name  of  Prefect  Barbaras  in  connection  with  the  eighth  year  of  Augustus  seems  to  contradict 
the  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  F.  Feuardent,  in  his  Numissnatique  de  V  Egypte  Ancienne ,  that  P.  Rubrius  Barbaras  was  prefect 
in  B.  C.  13;  Barbarus  was  in  power  in  Egypt  at  least  ten  years  before  that  date;  and  Mr.  F.  Feuardent’s  authority,  viz.:  the 
inscription  of  Philae  (Wescher  :  Bullet.  Instit.  Archeol. ,  1879)  appears  to  have  misled  him. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  compare  this  question  of  the  time  of  power  of  Barbarus,  as  written  on  the  obelisk  “  crab,”  with 
the  list  of  prefects  published  by  Franz,  in  his  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Grcecorum. 

In  regard  to  the  corresponding  date  of  the  eighth  year  of  Augustus  with  that  of  the  Christian  era,  I  suggest  that  it  was 
during  the  year  B.  C.  22  that  the  obelisk  was  erected  at  Alexandria.  This  date  of  the  eighth  year  cannot  correspond  with 
the  “Actian  Era,”  and  then  it  must  be  that  of  the  reign  of  Augustus  himself.  Therefore,  the  Anni  Augusts'  having  begun 
in  the  year  of  Rome  725  (A.U.C.),  or  B.  C.  29,  the  eighth  year  of  Augustus  falls  at  B.  C.  22.  I  do  not  follow  Censorinus, 
who  makes  the  Caesarian  era  begin  at  A.  D.  27. — G.  L.  F. 


L.1  H  KAI2AP02 
BAPBAP02  ANEQHKE 
APXITEKTON  OTNTOX 
nONTIOT 


CHAPTER  III. 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  LUXOR  OBELISK  TO  PARIS. 

BY  LIEUTENANT  SEATON  SCHROEDER,  UNITED  STATES  NAVY. 

TO  the  first  Napoleon  is  attributed  the  original  thought  of  endowing  Paris  with  an  Egyptian 
obelisk.  That  which  sixteen  years  of  war  and  the  continental  blockade  forbade  his  undertaking, 
his  royal  successor  began.  By  order  of  Louis  XVIII  the  French  Consul-General  in  Alexandria 
commenced  and  successfully  completed  negotiations  with  the  Viceroy  of  Egypt  for  the  cession  of  one 
of  the  Alexandrian  monoliths.  The  gift  was  cheerfully  made  and  Cleopatra’s  Needle  now  standing  in 
Central  Park,  New  York,  became  the  property  of  France.  No  steps  were  taken  to  remove  it  during 
that  reign,  however,  nor  is  it  now  known  what  were  the  causes  that  so  postponed  the  enterprise. 

The  mere  nominal  possession  of  so  noble  a  work  of  art  also  seemed  to  satisfy  the  dignitaries  of 
the  succeeding  government  for  some  years,  until  letters  from  MM.  de  la  Borde  and  Champollion  (the 
younger)  recalled  the  apparently  forgotten  gift.  Drawn  to  Egypt  by  their  love  of  the  sciences  those 
gentlemen  could  not  fail  to  be  struck  by  the  beauty  of  monuments  so  utterly  unappreciated  by  the 
listless  Arabs,  and  they  succeeded  in  firing  the  enthusiasm  of  friends  at  home.  Baron  d’  Haussez, 
Minister  of  Marine,  spurred  on  by  Baron  Taylor,  whose  rank,  studies,  and  tastes  lent  weight  to  his 
opinion,  quickly  became  interested  in  a  project  that  would  shed  lustre  as  well  on  the  reign  of  his 
master  as  on  himself,  under  whose  administration  it  would  be  carried  out.  An  additional  plea  was  not 
wanting  when  it  came  to  asking  the  Chambers  for  the  necessary  funds.  Regarded  by  Napoleon  simply 
in  the  light  of  a  monument  to  the  campaign  of  1799,  the  obelisk  had  recently  acquired  a  value  of  a 
far  different  nature  ;  the  Egyptian  Museum,  just  founded  by  the  king,  Charles  X,  and  bearing  his 
name,  coveted  it  as  a  specimen  of  antique  art. 

In  November,  1829,  the  Minister  wrote  to  M.  de  Cerisi,  a  French  officer  then  in  charge  of  the 
naval  constructions  of  Egypt,  asking  for  information  regarding  the  dimensions  and  weight  of  the 
monolith,  and  also  his  advice  as  to  the  best  means  of  lowering  and  transporting  it.  Another  officer 
on  duty  in  the  fleet  in  the  Levant  was  instructed  to  consult  with  M.  de  Cerisi  on  the  subject. 

In  the  meantime  Champollion,  travelling  through  Egypt,  had  seen  the  obelisks  of  Luxor,  and,  in 
a  letter  which  was  afterward  shown  to  Baron  d’  Haussez,  descanted  on  their  greater  beauty,  and  advised 
making  an  attempt  to  secure  them  even  if  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  one  in  Alexandria.  The  opinion 
of  so  eminent  an  authority  was  immediately  accepted,  and  his  advice  acted  on  soon  after. 

The  first  plan  of  removal  discussed  in  Paris  was  that  of  M.  Besson,  a  French  officer  serving  in 
the  Egyptian  navy.  He  proposed  a  method  similar  to  that  used  by  the  ancient  Romans.  A  raft 
would  be  built  in  Karamania,  no  feet  long  and  45  feet  broad,  and  towed  up  to  Thebes.  The 
obelisk,  encased  in  a  huge  wooden  cylinder,  fastened  with  iron  bands,  would  be  placed  on  the  raft, 
leaving  only  one  half  of  its  diameter  above  the  surface.  This  would  then  be  towed  to  the  Gulf  of 


78 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 

Toulon,  and  the  Needle  there  transferred  to  a  seaworthy  vessel  specially  built  to  bring  it  to  Havre, 
whence  it  would  be  taken  to  Paris  by  a  number  of  the  small  craft  usually  employed  in  the  navigation 
of  the  Seine. 

This  plan,  as  is  easily  seen,  was  very  complicated,  and  Baron  Tupinier,  Director  of  Ports,  showed 

its  faults  most  clearly  to  the  Minister  of  Marine,  whereupon  a  commission  was  formed,  composed 

of  MM.  de  la  Borde,  Tupinier,  Drovetti,  Taylor,  Briet,  de  Mackau,  and  de  Livron,  with  Baron  d’  Haussez 
as  president.  These  gentlemen,  after  a  long  discussion,  recommended  that  Baron  Taylor  should  be  sent 
to  Egypt  to  consult  with  Besson  and  de  Cerisi  on  the  best  plan  of  removal,  as  well  as  to  obtain  the 
cession  of  the  two  other  newly  coveted  obelisks.  The  friendly  disposition  of  Mohammed  Ali  was  so 
well  known  as  to  leave  little  doubt  of  his  consent.  The  approval  of  King  Charles  was  immediately 
obtained,  and  on  the  6th  of  January,  1830,  Baron  Taylor  was  duly  invested  with  the  royal  authority 
to  wait  upon  the  Pacha,  to  negotiate  the  cession  of  the  Luxor  obelisks,  and  have  Cleopatra’s  Needle 
transported  to  France.  A  credit  of  $20,000  was  opened  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  mission,  and 
the  brig  “  Lancier  ”  was  detailed  to  convey  him  to  Egypt. 

These  preliminaries  settled,  attention  was  again  bestowed  upon  the  methods  of  executing  the 
various  operations,  and  a  plan  advanced  by  Baron  Rolland  was  approved  by  the  Minister  of  Marine, 
who  ordered  the  construction  of  the  “  Luxor  ”  even  before  the  departure  of  Baron  Taylor  on  his  mission. 
The  “Luxor”  was  an  immense  barge  of  such  build  as  to  ascend  the  Nile,  receive  on  board  one  of  the 
obelisks,  and  bring  it  to  Paris.  That  is  to  say,  the  task  set  the  constructors  was  to  produce  a  vessel 
that  could  navigate  two  rivers  and  the  high  seas,  should  not  draw  over  six  and  a  half  feet  with  the 
obelisk  in,  should  pass  under  the  bridges  across  the  Seine,  and  should  be  strong  enough  to  take  the 
enormous  weight  while  lying  on  a  beach.  Of  course  M.  Rolland  had  to  depart  from  the  usual  rules 
of  naval  architecture  ;  the  proportion  of  length  to  breadth  was  very  small,  five  keels  were  fitted, 

and  the  necessary  longitudinal  and  transverse  strength  obtained  by  multiplying  fastenings  and  ties. 

The  result  was  an  immensely  strong  craft,  shaped  like  a  parallelopipedon  with  rounded  angles  ; 
three  masts  were  given  her.  It  is  perhaps  needless  to  add  that  the  material  of  which  she  was  built 
was  wood  ;  iron  shipbuilding  in  those  days  was  a  thing  of  the  future.  The  launch  took  place  at 
Toulon  on  the  26th  of  July,  1830,  and  M.  Mimerel,  naval  constructor,  and  M.  Verninac  de  St.  Maur, 
also  of  the  navy,  were  detailed  to  take  charge  of  the  work,  the  former  having  charge  of  all  operations 
on  shore,  and  the  latter  being  in  command  of  the  vessel  afloat. 

Meanwhile  Baron  Taylor  reached  Egypt  after  many  delays,  had  an  audience  with  the  Pacha,  and 
succeeded  in  the  principal  object  of  his  mission.  It  was  not  without  difficulty,  however,  as  Mr. 
Barker,  the  British  Consul,  had  labored  indefatigably,  and  finally  obtained  the  cession  of  the  Luxor  obelisks 
to  England.  The  skilful  diplomacy  of  M.  Taylor,  added  to  the  Viceroy’s  desire  to  please  the  French 
envoy,  soon  suggested  a  way  out  of  that  difficulty,  and  Mr.  Barker  was  offered  the  magnificent  obelisk 
of  Karnak  in  place  of  those  of  Luxor,  which  he  accepted.  Then  came  the  news  of  the  events  of  July,  1830, 
and  intrigues  were  commenced  to  have  the  gift  withdrawn.  But  M.  Taylor  and  the  French  Consul- 
General,  M.  Mimaut,  were  determined  to  retain  ownership  of  the  obelisks,  whatever  might  be  the 
action  of  the  new  government  in  the  matter  of  taking  possession  of  them.  They  had  no  difficulty 
in  persuading  the  Pacha  that  his  gift  had  really  been  to  the  French  nation  and  not  to  the  person  of 
the  king,  and  therefore  the  Revolution  could  afford  no  reason  for  withdrawing  his  gift.  The  following 
letter  from  the  Egyptian  Prime  Minister  to  Count  Sebastiani,  the  new  Minister  of  Marine,  finally 
confirmed  the  cession. 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


79 


Alexandria,  November  29,  1830. 

EXCELLENCY: 

His  Highness,  the  Viceroy  of  Egypt,  has  received  from  M.  le  Baron  Taylor  the  dispatch  of  which  he  was 
the  bearer,  from  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Navy  and  Colonies,  to  negotiate  in  the  name  of  H.  M.,  the  King 
of  France,  and  obtain  one  of  Cleopatra’s  Needles  at  Alexandria,  and  particularly  the  two  obelisks  of  Luxor, 
which  form  a  part  of  the  ruins  of  Thebes. 

His  Highness,  the  Viceroy,  has  charged  me  to  express  to  your  Excellency  the  pleasure  he  feels  in  showing 
his  gratitude  to  France  for  the  numerous  marks  of  kindness  and  friendship  that  have  been  manifested  to  him  at 
different  times,  and  which  have  been  recently  renewed  on  the  part  of  his  Majesty,  the  King  of  the  French, 
through  M.  le  Consul-General  Mimaut. 

I  am  ordered  by  His  Highness  to  place  the  three  monuments  at  the  disposal  of  H.  M.,  the  King  of  the 
French,  and  your  Excellency  is  requested  to  tender  them  to  His  Majesty  in  the  name  of  H.  H.,  the  Viceroy, 
Mehemet  Ali  Pacha. 

It  is  very  flattering  to  me  to  be  the  interpreter  of  the  wishes  of  my  prince  on  this  occasion,  and  I  beg 
your  Excellency  to  accept  the  assurance  of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

(Signed)  BOGHOZ  JOUSSOUF. 


On  the  2  5th  of  June  the  transport  “  Dromadaire”  had  arrived  at  Alexandria  for  the  transportation 
of  that  Needle.  But  as  she  had  not  brought  all  the  material,  especially  wood,  needed  for  the  various 
operations,  it  was  necessary  to  send  to  Karamania  to  supply  the  deficiency,  and  delays  arising  from 
these  circumstances  resulted  later  in  abandoning  the  idea  of  removing  that  obelisk. 

The  change  in  the  government  of  France  had  caused  no  abatement  in  the  desire  to  erect  the 
obelisks  in  Paris.  Count  Sebastiani  inherited  his  predecessor’s  enthusiasm  in  the  matter,  and  the 
equipment  of  the  “  Luxor  ”  was  pushed  rapidly  forward.  The  sum  of  $60,000  already  appropriated 
being  nearly  all  expended,  partly  in  the  construction  and  equipment  of  the  “  Luxor,”  partly  in  M. 
Taylor’s  mission,  a  further  credit  of  $40,000  was  asked  and  granted. 

A  change,  however,  had  to  be  made  in  the  detail  of  officers  to  take  charge  of  the  work,  as  M. 
Mimerel  found  that  the  state  of  his  health  was  such  as  to  compel  him  to  yield  the  honor  to  another, 
M.  Apollinaire  LeBas,  Naval  Constructor,  was  chosen  to  take  his  place,  and  it  was  this  officer  that 
lowered,  embarked,  and  afterward  re-erected  the  monument  that  towers  up  to  such  fine  effect  in  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde.  By  a  singular  coincidence  of  name  and  stature,  M.  LeBas  was  a  man  of  very 
diminutive  proportions,  and  the  smallness  of  his  size  appeared  in  striking  contrast  with  the  magnitude  of 
the  operations  he  was  called  upon  to  plan  and  execute.  His  skill  and  energy,  be  it  said,  proved  in 
inverse  proportion  to  his  height. 

M.  LeBas  was  left  perfectly  unhampered  as  to  the  mode  of  procedure  in  lowering  and  embarking 
the  obelisk,  but  was  provided  with  every  thing  that  study  and  good  judgment  could  point  to  being 
necessary.  He  was  also  authorized  to  select  a  master  carpenter,  and  a  number  of  other  carpenters, 
smiths,  caulkers,  joiners,  stone-cutters,  etc.,  from  the  dockyard,  and  the  “Luxor”  was  provided  with 
several  picked  boatswains.  Amply  equipped  and  manned,  the  transport  finally  made  sail  from  Toulon 
on  the  1 5th  of  April,  1831,  under  the  command  of  M.  Verninac  de  Saint-Maur. 

The  novel  craft  behaved  at  sea  much  as  was  expected ;  with  a  fair  wind  she  made  as  much  as  eight 
knots,  but  when  close-hauled  her  progress  was  crab-like.  Fortunately,  the  weather  was  propitious,  as  a 
rule,  and  on  the  3d  of  May  the  anchor  was  dropped  in  Alexandria  harbor,  off  the  Viceroy’s  palace. 
Although  anxious  to  proceed  with  all  haste  to  Upper  Egypt  to  examine  the  ground  and  prepare  a 
bed  for  the  “  Luxor  ”  before  the  inundation,  M.  LeBas  was  detained  here  three  weeks,  waiting  for 
the  consul  to  come  from  Cairo  and  arrange  for  an  audience  with  the  Pacha.  Mohammed  Ali  was 
most  cordial,  however,  and  by  his  evident  desire  to  further  in  every  possible  way  the  success  of  the 
undertaking,  removed  to  a  considerable  degree  the  disagreeable  impression  caused  by  this  first 
apparently  ominous  delay.  All  formalities  were  quickly  finished  ;  the  party  were  transferred  to  a  fleet 


8o 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Pans. 

of  swift  cangiahs  and  on  the  19th  of  June  they  started  up  the  Nile  from  Rosetta,  leaving  the  “  Luxor” 
to  follow  with  most  of  the  material. 

The  month  that  took  them  to  reach  their  destination  was  mainly  characterized  by  difficulties  and 
vexatious  {delays  purposely  caused  by  the  rats  or  captains  of  the  cangiahs  who  naturally,  perhaps, 
were  anxious  to  spin  out  the  time  as  much  as  possible.  The  passengers  humorously,  and  not  inaptly, 
compared  them  to  the  average  fiacre-driver  of  Paris,  who  takes  such  smiling  advantage  of  a  green 
traveller  that  may  have  engaged  him  by  the  hour.  The  governor  of  Cairo  on  hearing  of  their  conduct 
placidly  ordered  them  to  be  whipped,  but  graciously  countermanded  the  order  when  so  requested.  He 
had  simply  directed  that  the  difficulty  should  be  settled  according  to  the  custom  of  the  country,  and 
was  perhaps  not  a  little  astonished  when  the  foreigners  interceded  in  behalf  of  the  culprits.  Poor 
Arabs !  sinned  against  perhaps  more  than  sinning,  their  lot  was  hard  under  the  rule  of  the  great 
Mohammed  Ali ;  nor  has  it  been  greatly  bettered  since  that  time.  But  it  is  pleasant  to  chronicle 
the  opening  of  a  vista  of  improvement,  shining  in  the  light  of  an  earnest  and  just  administration. 
Since  the  present  enlightened  prince,  Tewfik  Pacha,  has  occupied  the  vice-regal  throne,  it  has  required 
less  optimism  to  foretell  brighter  days  in  Egypt’s  future. 

A  greenish  tint  in  the  water,  announcing  the  commencement  of  the  annual  rise,  warned  our  friends 
bound  up  to  Luxor  that  no  time  was  to  be  lost.  At  their  request  harasses,  or  body-guards,  were 
detailed  to  accompany  the  expedition,  to  stir  up  the  rais  when  they  seemed  inclined  to  lag  ;  and  sail 
was  again  made  on  the  cangiahs.  Atfyh,  Beni-Soueyf,  Abou  Girgeh,  Mellaoui,  Siout,  Kene,  and 
the  wonderful  ruins  of  Denderah  were  passed  successively,  and  as  the  Gamouleh  bend  was  rounded, 
the  gigantic  vestiges  of  the  ancient  city  appeared  on  all  sides,  gorgeously  tinted  by  the  slanting  rays 
of  the  setting  sun.  On  the  right  were  the  ruins  of  Quournah,  of  the  Memnonium,  the  Valley  of 

Tombs,  and  the  temples  of  Medinet-Abou  ;  to  the  left,  the  temples  of  Karnak,  with  its  colossal 

obelisk  ;  and,  farther  on,  the  colonnade  of  the  Luxor  palace,  with  two  granite  obelisks  guarding  the 

immense  gateway.  The  little  fleet  anchored  immediately  abreast  the  latter,  and  sailors,  workmen, 

officers,  and  all  scrambled  on  shore  to  make  acquaintance  with  the  two  lofty,  aged  sentinels,  one  of 
which  was  about  to  desert  his  post  after  a  watch  of  thirty-four  centuries. 

In  glowing  terms  had  Champollion  written  of  the  city  of  a  hundred  gates,  containing  palaces, 
sphinxes,  and  colossal  monuments,  all  bearing  witness  to  a  past  grandeur  and  subsequent  decadence  ; 
enthusiastically  had  he  weighed  upon  the  superior  beauty  of  the  westernmost  of  the  two  ruddy  monoliths, 
the  one  on  the  right  hand  in  entering  the  Rameseion.  But  one  thought  alone  actuated  the  enterprising 
little  band  whose  fortunes  we  are  following.  For  the  moment  they  were  interested  only  in  a  mass 
of  granite  weighing  some  230  tons,  which  it  devolved  upon  them  to  uproot  and  carry  away.  Mazacqui, 
the  Italian  stone-cutter,  true  to  his  instincts,  saluted  the  stony  giant  with  a  professional  tap  of  his 
hammer ;  something  seeming  to  startle  him,  he  repeated  the  blow,  and,  after  listening  attentively, 
exclaimed  in  the  jargon  only  intelligible  perhaps  to  travellers  in  Mediterranean  France  :  “  Moussou, 
la  pietra,  elle  est  felee,  mais  je  ne  crois  pas  qu’  elle  soit  routta  ;  lou  son  est  sano  ;  on  pourra  1’  enlever 
pourvu  qu’  elle  tombe  piano,  ben  piano.” 1 

The  fellow  was  right ;  the  defect  was  patent,  although  unmentioned  in  any  known  work  on 
Egypt.  To  some  of  the  native  officials  the  fact  was  no  secret  ;  during  the  short  stay  at  Cairo,  Krali 
Effendi,  in  speaking  to  M.  LeBas,  of  the  “  Stones  of  the  King  of  France,”  as  he  contemptuously  called 
them,  had  stated  that  there  was  a  fissure  in  that  westernmost  obelisk.  But  it  had  made  no  great 
impression  on  that  officer’s  mind,  because  of  the  improbability  of  so  serious  a  matter  having  escaped 
the  attention  of  all  writers  on  Egypt.  Even  Champollion,  whose  recent  visit  had  led  to  the  acquisition 
of  these  obelisks,  had  affirmed  that  the  base  of  the  westernmost  was  in  a  perfect  state  of  preservation. 

1  “  Sir,  the  stone  is  cracked,  but  I  do  not  think  it  is  broken  ;  the  sound  is  good  ;  it  can  be  removed  if  it  falls  softly, 
very  softly.” 


Removal  of  the  Litxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


8  i 


The  mason’s  blow,  however,  brushed  away  all  doubts  with  no  gentle  stroke,  and  excavations  soon 
revealed  that  a  fissure  extended  to  the  base,  twelve  feet  underground,  and  seemed  to  penetrate  into 
the  stone.  Fortunately,  as  subsequent  events  proved,  the  strength  of  the  mass  was  not  seriously 
impaired,  and  special  care  does  not  seem  to  have  been  necessary  to  prevent  undue  strain  on  that 
lower  part  during  the  operations  of  lowering  and  erection.  The  monolith  was  simply  disfigured  to 
a  certain  extent ;  but  that  seam  and  the  marring  of  the  pyramidion  are  the  only  faults  to  be  found 
with  that  beautiful  shaft. 

M.  LeBas’  orders  were  to  bring  home  that  western  obelisk — “  the  one  on  the  right  hand  in 
entering  the  Rameseion  ”  ;  marred  or  not  he  had  no  alternative.  An  examination  of  the  ground  was 
commenced  the  day  after  they  arrived,  and  two  facts  were  quickly  revealed  :  the  plans  that  he  had 
been  maturing  since  leaving  Toulon  were  impracticable  under  the  circumstances,  and  new  ones  had  to 
be  devised  ;  also  the  necessary  excavations  would  require  the  demolition  of  some  thirty  miserable  huts* 
A  proposition  was  made  to  buy  these,  but  the  cupidity  of  the  tenants  was  immediately  aroused  by  the 
offer,  and  the  answer  was  a  flat  refusal  to  sell.  The  Governor  of  Upper  Egypt,  on  being  apprised  of 
the  difficulty,  sent  his  interpreter  and  an  officer  of  his  guard  with  orders  to  enforce  immediate 
compliance  with  M.  LeBas’  wishes.  Those  two  worthies  naturally  proposed  to  end  the  matter  a  la 
Turqiie,  but  were  persuaded  to  desist,  and  a  commission  was  appointed  to  appraise  the  buildings  and 
decide  the  amount  to  be  paid  each  proprietor.  The  scenes  that  ensued,  as  described  afterward  by  M. 
LeBas,  the  shouting,  the  gesticulating,  the  noisy  wrath  of  men,  and  the  weeping  of  women,  the 
apparent  fury  on  both  sides,  can  be  imagined  perhaps  only  by  those  who  may  have  visited  the  bazars 
of  the  East ;  whatever  be  the  article  in  question,  whether  rugs,  rose-water,  or,  as  in  this  case,  houses, 
the  progress  and  finale  of  the  transactions  are  practically  the  same.  Great  was  the  astonishment  of  the 
strangers  in  Luxor,  when,  as  the  storm  of  anger  and  debate  appeared  to  reach  its  height,  there  was  a 
sudden  hush,  and  Ibrahim,  the  interpreter,  wiped  his  honest  brow,  and  with  a  look  of  conscious  pride 
at  having  faithfully  performed  a  painful  duty,  said  calmly,  though  hoarsely  :  “  It  is  all  arranged.”  The 
noise  had  ceased  as  by  magic,  and  the  various  disputants  all  retired  with  abundant  manifestations  of 
respect  and  affection. 

Will  the  reader  be  as  shocked  as  were  those  Frenchmen  on  learning  afterward  that  Ibrahim’s 
wonderful  zeal  was  all  a  hoax  ?  The  whole  scenic  effect — menaces  on  the  one  side,  prayers  and 
reproaches  on  the  other — proved  to  have  been  slyly  concocted  and  theatrically  produced — for  what?  To 
ensure  honest  Ibrahim  a  fair  commission  on  the  sale  ! 

The  four  sides  of  the  obelisk  faced  respectively  to  N.  W.,  N.  E.,  S.  E.,  and  S.  W.,  the  first  being 
turned  toward  the  river.  It  was  quickly  decided,  therefore,  to  lower  it  on  its  N.  W.  face  and  haul 
it  to  the  barge.  This  vessel  would  be  grounded  at  high  Nile,  and  the  obelisk  embarked  after  the 
fall  of  the  river  ;  the  following  year  the  stream  rising  again  would  float  the  vessel  and  cargo,  and 

the  journey  home  would  begin.  The  level  of  high-water  was  indicated  by  traces  of  the  river  at 

various  points  of  the  bank,  and  it  was  found  that  the  “Luxor”  could  safely  be  brought  to  a  distance 
of  about  430  yards  from  the  obelisk. 

M.  LeBas’  intention  at  first  was  to  lower  the  Needle  all  the  way  by  one  simple  rotation  on  an 

edge  of  the  base,  as  that  was  found  to  be  approximately  on  a  level  with  the  bench-mark  where  the 

“  Luxor  ”  was  to  be  grounded.  A  horizontal  roadway  would  then  be  constructed  to  the  bow  of  the  vessel. 
This  would  necessitate  an  excavation  of  about  5 5, 000  cubic  yards,  a  work  of  some  magnitude  in  itself, 
apart  from  the  danger  of  encountering  obstacles  in  the  shape  of  ancient  or  modern  masonry  concealed 
underground,  the  removal  of  which  might  add  enormously  to  the  labor.  In  view  of  such  possibilities 
he  conceived  the  idea  of  two  successive  rotations  ;  the  first  would  be  round  the  lower  edge  of  the 
N.  W.  face  as  the  axis,  until  the  Needle  should  touch  a  second  pivot  on  a  higher  plane  than  the  base, 
and  at  such  distance  as  to  take  approximately  at  the  centre  of  gravity.  Thus  poised,  the  remainder 


82 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 

of  the  descent  would  be  easy,  and  that  second  rotation  would  at  once  lower  the  summit  and  raise  the 
base  to  a  plane  above  that  of  the  pedestal.  A  considerable  amount  of  excavation  would  thus  be  saved, 
and  the  advantage  gained  of  a  down  grade  to  the  river. 

These  essential  points  determined,  it  remained  to  devise  the  means  of  executing  them.  The  only 
mechanical  application  of  power  available  under  the  circumstances  was  fortunately  that  which  suggests 
itself  most  readily  to  the  naval  mind,  namely,  the  pulley.  The  result  to  be  produced  required  two 

systems  or  series  of  tackles.  One  would  pull  the  top  of  the  obelisk  over  toward  the  river  ;  the  other 

would  hold  it  in  check  and  lower  it  safely,  only  beginning  to  act  when  the  vertical  through  the  centre 
of  gravity  should  pass  beyond  the  axis  of  rotation. 

Pending  the  arrival  of  the  material,  all  that  could  be  done  was  to  tear  down  the  buildings  that 
were  in  the  way,  and  prepare  the  bed  for  the  “  Luxor  ”  in  such  position  that  she  could  lie  with  her  three 
masts  in  a  line  perpendicular  to  the  face  of  the  obelisk.  The  Nile  was  rising  so  fast  by  that  time  that 
the  men  working  at  that  and  at  the  foundation  of  the  sliding-ways  had  to  be  protected  from  the  water  by 
movable  dikes,  that  were  shifted  in  as  the  work  progressed.  It  had  been  announced  in  Thebes  and 
the  neighboring  villages  that  laborers  were  wanted  and  would  receive  daily  a  fixed  sum.  Such  novel 
news  was  hailed  with  acclamations  by  the  fellaheen ,  and  the  work  never  flagged  for  want  of  unskilled 
labor.  Four  hundred  men,  women,  and  children  were  soon  busily  engaged  with  pick,  hoe,  and  basket, 
and  the  usual  songs  were  chanted,  interrupted  only  by  the  cries  of  the  sheiks:  “Yalla!  volet;  Yalla! 
benti.”  (Go  ahead,  boys  ;  go  ahead,  girls.)  The  heat  of  course  was  intense,  and  the  dust  suffocating, 
and  the  suffering  on  all  sides  very  great  ;  but  many  hands  made  light  work,  and  matters  progressed 

very  fairly.  On  the  ist  of  August  a  number  of  ladders  lashed  together  were  raised  along  the  face 

of  the  Needle,  and  soon  after  the  sailors  had  the  French  ensign  displayed  from  the  top. 

On  August  13th  all  the  rats  in  the  vicinity  came  trooping  in  to  herald  the  approach  of  a  huge 
craft  which  some  compared  to  a  floating  mosque,  and  others  to  a  feddam  of  ground.1  It  was  the 
“  Luxor,”  the  manoeuvring  of  which  without  a  sound  save  that  of  the  boatswain’s  whistle  could  not  fail 
to  amaze  the  noisy  and  simple-minded  Arabs.  On  the  14th  she  anchored  near  by,  and  on  the  following 
day  was  placed  in  position,  bows  in,  over  the  carefully  prepared  bed,  by  that  time  well  under  water. 
The  ruins  of  a  neighboring  temple  had  then  to  be  cleared  out,  roofed  over  and  turned  into  quarters. 
A  hospital  was  also  prepared,  and  several  other  buildings  erected  for  the  various  uses  of  a  camp, — 
kitchen,  bakery,  storehouse,  etc.  The  village  quickly  assumed  a  new  aspect. 

A  staging  was  built  to  the  top  of  the  obelisk  for  the  purpose  of  encasing  it  with  wood  and  of 
measuring  all  its  dimensions.  As  is  perhaps  known  to  all,  the  shape  of  the  Needle  is  that  of  a 
quadrangular  truncated  pyramid,  surmounted  by  a  pyramidion,  or  small  pyramid.  The  dimensions  are 
as  follows  : — 

FEET.  INCHES. 

Height  of  main  shaft  (truncated  pyramid)  -  -  -  -  -  68  6.8 

Height  of  pyramidion  (imperfect)2  ------  6  4.4 

Total  height  -  -  -  -  -  -  74  1 1.2 

1  A  feddam  is  about  two  thirds  of  an  acre. 

2  If  perfect,  this  pyramidion  would  be  about  eight  feet  in  height.  As  the  Egyptians  never  left  such  unfinished  work,  it 
seems  probable  either  that  the  stone  has  worn  away  there,  aided  perhaps  by  superficial  flaws,  or  that  another  material  was 
substituted  for  the  granite  which  was  deficient.  M.  J.  J.  Hittorf,  who  some  years  later  designed  the  new  pedestal  in  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde,  and  the  other  embellishments  of  that  handsome  square,  argued  powerfully  in  support  of  the  latter 
theory,  maintaining  also  that  bronze,  possibly  gilded,  appeared,  from  its  nature,  and  the  undeniable  proofs  of  its  analogous 
use  in  other  Egyptain  monuments,  to  be  the  material  most  suitable  to  supplying  the  given  want.  The  fact  of  there  being 
a  small  flat  ledge  at  the  base  of  the  pyramidion  certainly  gives  coloring  to  the  idea,  though  it  is  still  a  mooted  point  among 
Egyptologists  whether  or  not  the  ancients  resorted  to  that  means  of  perfecting  their  monuments. 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


83 


FEET. 

INCHES. 

FEET. 

INCHES 

'  N.  E. 

side 

8 

O 

'  N.  E. 

side 

4 

1 1 

Base  of 

H 

S.  E. 

U 

7 

1 1-3 

Top  of 

S.  E. 

U 

5 

2.2 

main  shaft 

S.  W. 

u 

7 

”•3 

main  shaft 

S.  W. 

U 

4 

I  I 

.  N.  W. 

<< 

7 

1 1-3 

.  N.  W. 

u 

5 

2.2 

These  data  give  a  volume  of  2,948  cubic  feet  for  the  main  shaft,  and  54  for  the  pyramidion,  or 
3,002  in  all.  Assuming  the  specific  gravity  of  the  granite  to  be  2.66,  the  weight  of  the  Paris  obelisk 
is  222.28  tons,1  neglecting  loss  from  hieroglyphics. 

A  close  examination  revealed  that  all  the  sides  of  this  monolith  are  not  planes ;  the  N.  W.  and 
S.  E.  faces  as  it  stood  at  Luxor  (turned  respectively  to  the  Seine  and  to  the  Madeleine  in  Paris)  have 
a  double  curvature.  Laterally  both  are  convex,  the  versed  sine  of  the  convexity2  of  the  former  being 
1  i  inches,  and  of  the  latter  1  i  inches  ;  in  other  words,  these  two  sides  are  rounded  out,  the  middle 
of  the  rounding  being  1  £  and  1  i  inches  from  an  imaginary  straight  line  across  from  edge  to  edge. 

The  longitudinal  curvatures  are  remarkable  in  that  the  N.  W.  face  is  convex,  and  the  S.  E.  concave, 

in  consequence  of  which  all  four  longitudinal  edges  are  curves  convex  to  N.  W. — to  the  river  Seine 
as  the  obelisk  now  stands.  The  versed  sine  of  this  curvature  is  very  small,  being  only  four-fifths  of 
an  inch  for  the  N.  W.  face,  and  half  an  inch  for  the  other. 

It  is  a  very  curious  fact  that  the  sides  of  the  other  obelisk,  still  at  Luxor,  present  the  same 
peculiarity,  the  convexity  of  its  edges  also  being  turned  toward  the  Nile.  This  can  hardly  be 
attributable  to  accident,  or  to  the  imperfection  of  the  work  of  quarrying  and  dressing,  but  must  be 
considered  one  of  the  many  questions  connected  with  these  wonderful  monuments  that  have  yet  to  be 
solved. 

As  during  the  first  contemplated  rotation  the  entire  weight  of  the  obelisk  would  come  on  the 
edge  round  which  it  was  to  revolve,  It  was  necessary  to  have  that  edge  take  on  some  comparatively 
soft  material,  which  would  act  as  a  cushion  and  save  it  from  being  crushed.  It  was,  therefore,  let  in 
to  a  heavy  oak  cross-log  ;  this  was  carefully  rounded  on  the  outside  so  as  to  turn  easily  in  a  second 

timber  hollowed  to  correspond  ;  this  bottom-piece  rested  in  a  mortise  cut  like  a  step  in  the  top  and 

side  of  the  pedestal.  Thus  was  formed  a  sort  of  hinge  around  which  the  rotation  would  be 

operated. 

Of  the  two  systems  of  tackles  necessary  to  bring  the  obelisk  safely  from  the  vertical  to  the 
horizontal,  we  will  first  examine  the  apparatus  for  inclining  the  obelisk  from  the  vertical. 

This  gear  consisted  of  three  capstans  to  which  were  taken  the  hauling  parts  of  as  many  tackles. 
The  fixed  blocks  of  these  tackles  were  taken  to  anchors  planted  in  the  sand,  and  the  movable  blocks 
to  a  cable  fastened  to  the  obelisk  just  below  the  pyramidion.  The  tackles  were  sixfold  purchases  of 
6^-inch  new  untarred  rope,  rove  through  sheaves  14  inches  in  diameter.  Each  capstan  was  fitted 

with  sixteen  bars,  on  each  of  which  would  be  four  men. 

In  hauling  on  a  heavy  sixfold  purchase  the  strain  on  the  hauling  part  is  more  than  double  that 
on  the  standing  part,  because  of  the  friction  and  loss  of  power  resulting  from  the  numerous  changes 
in  direction  of  the  various  parts.  Also,  for  the  same  reason,  to  overcome  a  certain  weight  at  the 
movable  block  of  a  tackle  of  this  size,  the  power  applied  to  the  hauling  part  must  be  one  quarter 
that  weight,  and  not  one  sixth.  In  the  case  under  consideration  the  weight  to  be  moved  (to  start 
the  obelisk  and  appendages  from  the  vertical)  was  found  to  be  about  5 2, 000  pounds.  Assuming  every 
man  to  heave  on  his  capstan-bar  with  a  steady  power  of  22  pounds,  the  mean  leverage  on  each  bar 
being  6^  feet,  the  power  transmitted  by  each  capstan  to  the  hauling  part  of  its  tackle  would  be 

1  English  tons  of  2,240  pounds.  M.  LeBas  assumed  the  specific  gravity  to  be  2.70  and  found  the  weight  to  be  225.87 

tons. 

*  Mathematically  speaking,  the  versed  sine  of  half  the  arc. 


84 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Pans. 

about  5,120  pounds  after  deducting  the  loss  by  friction  and  by  the  angular  lead  of  the  fall  away 

from  the  barrel.  The  quadruple  gain  in  power  by  the  sixfold  purchases  would  increase  that  to  20,480 

pounds  exerted  by  each  tackle,  or  61,440  pounds  in  all, — nearly  10,000  in  excess  of  the  weight.  In 
case  of  necessity  a  much  greater  power  could  be  exerted  by  encouraging  the  men  to  put  forth  their 
strength;  a  man  can  exert  a  power  of  forty  pounds  on  a  capstan-bar  for  several  hours. 

The  maximum  power  in  an  operation  of  this  kind  is  only  required  at  first,  because  the  resistance 
or  weight  must  decrease  as  the  vertical  through  the  centre  of  gravity  approaches  the  axis  of  rotation. 
When  that  vertical  reaches  the  axis  equilibrium  ensues,  and  after  that  the  duty  of  the  inclining  gear 
is  done,  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  check  the  mass  and  allow  it  to  descend  gently. 

This  required  an  entirely  separate  system  of  tackles,  which  we  will  designate  as  the  apparatus  for 
lowering  the  obelisk.  It  will  be  readily  seen  that  a  series  of  checking  or  lowering  tackles  leading  to 
the  top  of  the  obelisk  from  any  point  on  the  ground  would  be  at  a  favorable  angle  with  it  at  first,  but 
as  the  inclination  from  the  vertical  increased,  the  angle  between  them  and  the  axis  of  the  monolith 
would  decrease,  finally  becoming  so  small  as  to  bring  upon  them  a  strain  greater  than  could  be 
resisted  by  the  means  at  hand.  To  obviate  this  difficulty  recourse  was  had  to  a  certain  number  of 
spurs  or  derricks  to  keep  that  angle  practically  constant. 

First  of  all,  excavations  were  made  to  the  level  of  the  pedestal,  and  carried  toward  the  river 

only  as  far  as  the  position  of  the  second  pivot.  In  this  angle  of  the  pit  a  heavy  platform  was  built, 

from  which  rose  a  brick  wall  to  support  that  second  pivot  and  to  prevent  crushing  in  of  the  earth. 
On  this  platform  was  also  the  fundamental  feature  of  the  whole  apparatus, — the  axial  beam  of  the  spurs. 

This  axial  beam,  of  which  the  lower  part  was  rounded,  was  placed  horizontal  in  the  right  angle 
formed  by  the  vertical  brick  wall  and  the  platform.  On  its  plane  face  were  stepped  the  eight  masts 
or  derricks,  arranged  in  two  equal  groups,  one  on  each  side  of  the  obelisk,  and  laid  nearly  horizontal 
with  the  heads  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  obelisk, — away  from  the  river.  The  heads  of  all  eight, 
slightly  converging,  were  connected  by  a  double  cross-piece,  the  entire  fabric  forming  a  trapezoid 
capable  of  rotating  around  its  base.  At  that  double  cross-beam  the  head  of  each  mast  was  permanently 
connected  with  the  top  of  the  obelisk  by  a  standing  cable  or  shroud,  so  that  the  top  of  the  Needle 
in  descending  would  pull  the  heads  of  the  masts  up  correspondingly.  The  power  for  checking  the 
descent  would  then  be  applied  to  these  spurs’  heads.  For  this  eight  heavy  sixfold  purchases  were 
used,  the  movable  treble-blocks  being  secured  to  the  derrick-heads  and  shrouds,  and  the  fixed  double¬ 
blocks  to  a  heavy  framing  worked  around  the  pedestal  of  the  other  obelisk. 

In  lowering  by  these  tackles  it  would  be  of  paramount  importance  to  always  keep  exactly  the  same 
strain  on  all  the  falls,  and  this  it  is  impossible  for  eight  men  to  do  when  acting  independently.  The 
difficulty  was  overcome  by  an  ingenious  though  simple  device.  A  large  round  log  was  prepared  as 
a  roller,  with  cleats  or  whelps  bolted  on  to  make  the  surface  rough.  The  hauling  parts  of  the  tackles 
were  taken  to  this  roller,  a  groove  being  made  for  each  so  as  to  keep  them  separate  ;  two  turns  of 
the  ropes  were  taken  around  the  beam  to  prevent  their  slipping  or  rendering.  In  this  way  the  tackles 
could  only  be  eased  away  by  the  revolution  of  the  beam  ;  the  diameter  being  exactly  the  same  in  all 
the  grooves,  one  revolution  of  the  beam  would  slack  all  the  tackles  equally.  It  was  only  necessary  to 
give  them  all  an  equal  strain  before  beginning  operations. 

From  the  moment  the  centre  of  gravity  passed  outside  the  axis  of  rotation,  the  strain  on  the 
derrick-heads  and  thence  on  the  tackles  would  increase  from  zero  at  the  beginning  to  a  maximum  when 
the  inclination  of  the  obelisk  would  be  greatest,  that  is,  when  it  would  reach  the  second  pivot.  This 
maximum  power  was  found  to  be  209,100  pounds  on  the  tackles,  or  26,140  on  each.  By  means  of 
turns  of  the  ropes  around  immovable  posts  and  beams,  friction  was  obtained  sufficient  to  reduce  the 
weight  required  at  the  end  of  each  fall  to  about  28  or  30  pounds,  or  well  within  the  command  of  the 
seaman  attending  it. 


r 


Plate  XXXIII. 


■ 


* 


’ 

. 


, 


. 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


85 


The  inclination  of  the  obelisk  from  the  vertical  would  necessarily  bring  about  an  increase  in  the 
horizontal  component  of  the  thrust  exerted  by  it  on  the  pedestal.  The  thrust  exerted  by  the  derricks 
being  in  an  opposite  direction,  the  platform  on  which  they  were  stepped  was  rigidly  connected  with 
the  pedestal,  and  a  part  of  the  eastward  thrust  taken  up.  The  strain  on  the  pedestal  being  in  excess 
of  that  on  the  platform,  the  resultant  of  the  two  opposing  forces  would  be  neutralized  by  the  sand 
and  earth  against  the  southeast  face  of  the  plinth. 

The  two  apparatus  just  described  are  similar  to  those  used  later  in  raising  the  obelisk  again  in 
Paris,  the  main  difference  being  that  in  the  latter  operation  only  one  rotation  was  performed,  the  edge 
of  the  base  being  the  axis.  Plate  xxxiii  therefore,  represents  the  main  features  of  both  operations. 

The  child-like  Arabs  quickly  adapted  themselves  to  the  new  and  extraordinary  work  going  on, 
and  a  squad  of  expert  long-sawyers  was  soon  organized  and  trained.  Thoroughly  unacquainted  with 
the  tool  at  first,  the  more  intelligent  ones  were  made  to  practise  on  trunks  of  date-palms  until  their 
proficiency  warranted  leaving  all  such  work  to  them  under  supervision,  and  the  carpenters  of  the 
expedition  were  saved  that  labor  and  remained  free  to  do  more  delicate  work.  In  spite  of  the  heat 
and  dust  every  thing  progressed  satisfactorily.  By  the  first  of  September  the  scaffolding  was  finished 
to  the  top  of  the  obelisk,  and  the  sheathing  commenced.  This  was  of  5  1-4  inch  plank. 

Shortly  after,  however,  a  terrible  visitor  made  its  appearance.  Cholera,  whose  approach  had  been 
heralded  step  by  step  up  the  river,  suddenly  attacked  the  little  colony.  Fifteen  of  the  seamen  were 
soon  in  the  extemporized  hospital  ;  the  Arabs  fared  worse  than  the  Europeans,  many  of  them  dying 
suddenly  at  the  close  of  a  day’s  work.  Communication  was  also  interrupted  with  Alexandria,  and  the 
hoped-for  supplies  of  wood  and  other  material  had  to  be  given  up.  Every  thing  looked  dark  indeed  ; 
but  the  gallant  little  band,  far  away  from  all  help  or  encouragement,  thrown  entirely  upon  their  own 
resources,  struggled  along  with  the  work.  A  strict  compliance  with  the  regime  prescribed  by  the 
surgeon  was  enforced,  and  daylight  dawned  ahead  at  last. 

By  the  1st  of  October  the  sheathing  of  the  obelisk  was  completed,  the  axial  beam  of  the  derricks 
in  place,  and  these  all  ready  to  be  stepped.  The  shrouds  were  secured  to  the  top  of  the  obelisk  and 
to  the  derrick-heads,  the  blocks  turned  in ,  and  in  short  the  whole  apparatus  prepared  as  described 
above. 

Daylight  on  the  24th  of  October,  1831,  found  every  one  at  his  post, — Arabs  at  the  capstan-bars, 
seamen  at  the  lowering  tackles  ;  and  as  the  first  beams  of  the  rising  sun  gilded  the  colossal  statue  of 
Memnon,  the  silence  was  broken  by  the  words  of  command.  The  capstans  went  round,  the  tackles 
tightened,  and  the  great  mass  slowly  yielded,  drawing  after  it  the  derrick-heads  which  had  been 
fancifully  decorated  with  little  flags  and  palm  branches.  An  angle  of  eight  degrees  from  the  vertical  was 
reached  when  the  whole  came  to  a  stand-still  ;  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  capstans  reported  that 
their  anchors  were  drawing  through  the  sand.  Orders  were  given  to  slack  away  more  rapidly  on  the 
opposite  side  ;  this  being  done  the  rotatory  motion  recommenced,  and  very  soon  the  centre  of  gravity 
passed  beyond  the  plane  of  the  axis  and  every  thing  devolved  upon  the  eight  picked  men  that 
controlled  the  movement.  In  twenty-five  minutes  from  the  time  the  first  order  was  given  to  heave, 
the  obelisk  touched  the  beam  that  was  to  form  the  axis  of  the  second  rotation.  Nothing  had  given 
way  ;  so  far  perfect  success  had  crowned  the  efforts  put  forth. 

The  first  great  suspense  was  over,  but  difficulties  were  seen  ahead  as  great  as  had  yet  been 
encountered,  if  not  greater.  All  the  wood  left  for  use,  excepting  the  soft  trunks  of  palm-trees, 
consisted  of  six  joists,  23  feet  long  and  7  by  8  inches  square,  and  a  few  pieces  of  plank.  With  this 
slender  stock  a  timber  way  had  to  be  constructed  to  the  bow  of  the  “Luxor”  on  which  to  slide  the 
obelisk.  There  being  no  hope  of  obtaining  the  material  written  for,  work  had  to  be  begun  with 
what  there  was  on  hand.  The  six  joists  sufficed  to  form  sliding  ways  69  feet  long,  made  in  three 
parts  capable  of  being  disconnected.  The  joists  were  connected  by  heavy  cleats  at  the  ends,  and 


86 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Pans. 

rested  on  a  flooring  made  of  transverse  pieces  of  planking  spiked  to  their  under  side.  The  whole 
did  not  present  enough  bearing  surface  to  ensure  safety,  and  M.  LeBas  felt  serious  doubts  as  to  its 
answering  the  purpose.  So  great  were  his  misgivings,  in  fact,  that  he  refrained  from  sending  a  report 
of  progress  until  the  end  of  the  final  operation. 

While  this  work  was  being  carried  on  an  examination  was  made  of  the  heel  of  the  obelisk.  It 
was  found  that  the  fissure  that  had  so  disconcerted  M.  LeBas  was  crossed  by  two  dovetail-shaped 
mortises,  filled  with  a  yellowish  dust,  the  remains  of  the  wooden  dogs  which  must  have  been  driven  in 
before  the  erection  to  prevent  any  possible  widening  of  the  crack.1  The  fissure  therefore  was,  beyond 

doubt,  a#  defect  in  the  stone,  as  old  as  the  monolith,  the  antiquity  of  which  was  itself  well  attested 

by  the  nomen  and  prenomen  of  Ramses  II,  sculptured  under  the  heel.  Various  incisions  were  also 
found  in  both  pedestals,  and  one  of  these  in  the  eastern  could  not  fail  to  attract  attention.  It  was  near 
and  parallel  to  the  N.  W.  side  of  the  block,  semicircular  on  section,  and  its  axis  lay  exactly  under 
that  edge  of  the  obelisk.  It  would  seem  quite  credible  therefore  that  it  had  served  as  a  receptacle  for 

t 

a  wooden  axis  of  rotation  in  the  erection.  The  fact  of  this  groove  being  on  the  side  next  to  the 

river,  and  it  being  known  that  that  eastern  obelisk  was  the  first  of  the  two  erected,  so  that  the  other 

was  not  in  the  way,  would  also  point  to  the  possibility  of  its  having  been  brought  by  water  to  the 
adjacent  bank,  and  that  in  the  transportation  as  well  as  the  erection  means  had  been  employed 
perfectly  similar  to  those  used  more  than  thirty  centuries  later  in  lowering  and  removing  its  fellow. 

When  the  section  of  ways  was  completed  the  master  carpenter  reported  that  every  particle  of 
wood  was  used,  and  that  if  any  thing  should  break  he  would  be  unable  to  repair  it. 

The  centre  of  gravity  being  slightly  beyond  the  new  pivot,  the  second  rotation  would  succeed 
the  first  without  application  of  power,  except  to  hold  back.  It  being  necessary  to  cast  off  the 
shrouds  from  the  obelisk  before  it  should  touch  the  ways,  two  tackles  were  secured  to  the  derrick- 
heads  and  to  the  pyramidion,  near  the  point,  and  the  shrouds  removed.  Before  allowing  the  second 
rotation  to  take  place  it  was  necessary  also  to  provide  means  to  prevent  the  whole  mass  slipping  and 
sliding  back  eastward  when  the  lower  edge  should  rise  from  the  mortise  in  the  pedestal,  which  would 
be  sure  to  occur  because  of  the  checking  tackles  from  the  derrick-heads  leading  at  such  an  acute 
angle  with  the  axis  of  the  Needle.  To  effect  this  a  block  of  masonry  was  built  on  the  pedestal,  the 
side  of  it  touching  the  heel  of  the  obelisk  and  curved  properly  to  coincide  with  the  arc  to  be 
described  by  it. 

These  and  all  other  minor  details  completed,  the  head  of  the  monolith  was  allowed  to  descend 
and  the  heel  to  rise  from  the  socket.  The  entire  weight  then  resting  on  the  log  forming  the  pivot, 
compressed  and  ground  it  into  the  brick  wall  beneath,  and  made  the  latter  also  settle  somewhat  into 
the  platform  and  earth.  The  monolith  being  lowered  bodily  by  the  amount  of  the  compression,  took  on 
the  end  of  the  sliding  ways  ;  this,  of  course,  sank  into  the  ground  under  the  pressure,  and  the  timber 
road  assumed  a  curve  convex  upward.  As  the  point  of  the  needle  descended,  the  axis  of  rotation 
gradually  changed  forward  up  that  curve  until  it  reached  the  centre  of  gravity,  when  the  whole  system 
was  in  equilibrium,  the  Needle  lying  on  an  upward  slope.  Power  was  applied  to  raise  the  heel,  four 
tackles  from  the  derrick-heads  being  used,  with  the  falls  taken  to  small  capstans.  It  was  brought 
somewhat  nearer  the  horizontal,  but  soon  all  efforts  proved  unavailing  to  move  it.  The  cable  that 
had  been  used  for  inclining  it  from  the  perpendicular  was  then  taken  round  the  heel,  four  heavy 
tackles  clapped  on  the  ends,  and  the  falls  taken  to  capstans  manned  by  forty-eight  men  each,  the 
object  being  to  rouse  the  obelisk  up  the  slope  and  out  of  the  pit.  This  gear  was  ready  on  the  16th 
of  November  ;  they  hove  on  the  large  capstans  and  at  the  same  time  on  the  vertical  tackles  on  the 
heel,  but  to  no  effect.  The  men  were  cheered  on,  and  hove  with  all  their  strength  ;  the  ropes 
stretched  enormously,  and  finally  two  of  the  tackles  parted. 

1  The  Egyptians  frequently  resorted  to  this  method  of  connecting  blocks  of  stone  ;  a  number  of  the  slabs  in  the 
temples  of  Luxor  and  Karnak  are  thus  united  two  by  two. 


TIOIST  OF  THE  FREXCH  OBELISK. 


Plate  XXXIV. 


* 


' 


* 


. 


. 


* 

' 


I 


87 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris . 

The  loss  seemed  irreparable,  and  the  cause  seemed  inexplicable  as  the  power  applied  was  double 
what  was  necessary  to  drag  that  weight.  Something  was  evidently  wrong,  and  it  seemed  most 
probable  that  some  part  of  the  sheathing  of  the  obelisk  had  caught  against  the  timber-work. 
The  only  way  to  get  at  it  to  examine  it  was  to  remove  the  log  around  which  the  rotation  had  been 
made.  This  was  so  ground  into  the  wall  that,  although  relieved  of  the  weight  there,  it  had  to  be  cut 
out  with  chisels.  Even  the  earth  was  so  compressed  that  it  had  to  be  chipped  away  with  tools,  and 
the  fragments  were  too  hot  to  handle. 

The  cause  of  the  trouble  soon  came  to  light.  The  sight  that  greeted  them  confirmed  most 
emphatically  M.  LeBas’  fears  about  the  timber-work  not  having  enough  bearing-surface  ;  every  thing 
seemed  to  be  in  chaos.  The  immediate  cause  was  that  the  first  section  of  the  ways  had  been  thrown 
out  of  line  transversely  ;  the  joists  and  traverses  had  all  been  broken  in  two  ;  and  the  pieces  of  the 
latter,  held  down  at  the  ends  by  the  joists,  but  forced  up  in  the  middle  by  the  earth,  had  taken  against 
the  cross-ties  of  the  sheathing,  thus  blocking  the  obelisk  completely.  The  only  way  to  get  at  the 
traverses  to  clear  them  was  by  removing  the  earth  from  under  that  part  of  the  planking  ;  of  course 
this  had  to  be  done  very  cautiously  and  slowly.  The  traverses  were  then  forced  down  the  sliding 
ways  by  wedges  made  from  capstan-bars. 

The  tackles  were  rigged  again  as  before,  and  in  addition  ten  screw-jacks  were  applied  to  the 
heel  of  the  obelisk.  At  the  order  the  men  hove  on  the  capstans  and  screw-jacks  together,  and  the 
ropes  seemed  to  be  reaching  the  limit  of  safety,  when  the  obelisk  gave  a  start  and  moved  forward 
three  feet  with  a  jump.  Every  thing  was  upset  again,  joists  and  traverses  broken,  and  further  progress 
prevented  ;  the  same  work  had  to  be  gone  over  again  of  removing  the  earth  and  forcing  the  planking 
down  with  wedges.  This  done,  another  pull  was  given  with  the  same  success,  and  with  the  same 
subsequent  work.  And  so  it  went  on  with  fresh  complications  each  time,  and  with  the  additional 
feature  that  the  obelisk  forged  somewhat  to  the  right  of  the  direct  line  in  consequence  of  the  lateral 
inclination  of  the  ways.  No  attention  was  paid  to  that,  however,  until  it  was  hauled  entirely  clear  of 

the  excavations.  It  was  then  no  longer  in  any  possible  danger  of  breaking,  as  had  been  feared  while 

the  heel  overhung  the  pit,  and,  moreover,  it  rested  throughout  its  length  on  the  remains  of  the  sliding 
ways,  compressing  it  less  and  making  further  progress  easier. 

Another  section  of  ways  had  to  be  built,  and  to  do  this  the  derricks  had  to  be  sacrificed.  When 
the  time  came  to  haul  again  small  spurs  were  placed  angularly  against  the  side  of  the  obelisk,  and 
by  their  rigidity  forced  it  back  to  the  proper  line  of  progress  as  it  advanced.  After  that  it  was  only 
a  matter  of  time  and  patience  to  reach  the  “  Luxor,”  the  only  fear  being  at  first  that  the  operation  of 
embarking  might  not  be  completed  before  the  rise  of  the  Nile  in  the  summer.  As  the  event  proved 
they  might  have  spared  themselves  that  anxiety,  as  the  poor  fellows  had  to  remain  there  eight 

t 

tantalizing  months  in  idleness  waiting  for  the  rise. 

When  it  came  to  opening  the  bow  of  the  “  Luxor  ”  what  seemed  a  simple  task  at  first  proved 

the  opposite.  The  mere  opening  was  not  difficult,  but  the  rebuilding  afterward  would  be  out  of  the 

question  with  the  scanty  stock  of  timber  on  board,  none  of  which  was  of  suitable  shape.  So  instead 
of  tearing  down  that  part  of  the  vessel  it  was  carefully  sawed  off  near  the  foremast,  and  triced  up 
out  of  the  way  by  means  of  shears.  The  following  arrangements  were  then  made  for  hauling  the 
obelisk  in. 

Two  anchors  were  planted  astern  of  the  vessel,  and  their  chains  passed  inboard  through  holes 
cut  in  the  counter.  The  ends  of  these  were  bent  in  the  fixed  blocks  of  four  heavy  tackles,  the 
movable  blocks  being  secured  to  a  cable  passed  around  the  heel  of  the  obelisk ;  the  hauling  parts 
were  led  to  capstans.  To  save  the  stern  from  being  cut  through  by  the  chains  as  they  tightened, 
a  brick  wall  was  built  close  to  the  stern-post  up  to  the  height  of  the  holes  in  the  counter.  Immediately 
forward  of  the  vessel  a  stone  causeway  was  also  built,  twenty-five  feet  long,  to  take  the  weight  and 


88  Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 

save  the  timbers  as  the  obelisk  came  in,  and  prevent  their  being  thrown  out  of  line  at  that  critical 
moment. 

On  December  19,  1831,  all  was  ready;  one  hundred  and  ninety-two  men  hove  on  the  capstans, 
and  in  less  than  two  hours  the  monolith  was  in  its  place  on  board.  The  joy  and  pride  felt  by  all, 
especially  by  their  enterprising  leader,  at  the  completion  of  that  important  operation  may  be  imagined 
more  easily  than  described ;  four  months  and  a  half  of  excessive  toil,  trial,  and  suffering  were  rewarded 
by  complete  success  ;  the  problem  was  solved.  Among  the  natives  the  principal  emotion  was  that  of 
wonder ;  and  when,  a  week  later,  the  bow  of  the  vessel  had  been  lowered  to  its  place,  and  even  the 
marks  of  the  saw  were  barely  visible,  their  astonishment  gave  way  to  the  usual  superstitions,  and  these 
wonderful  results  were  attributed  to  the  Afreets. 

To  secure  the  bow  every  alternate  plank  that  had  been  cut,  both  inside  and  outside,  was  removed, 
and  a  new  one  substituted  spanning  the  cut.  The  keels  had  not  been  injured,  but  taken  apart  at 
the  scarfs  near  the  forefoot.  Additional  long  breasthooks  were  worked  in,  and  the  scarfs  of  the 
keelsons  strengthened  by  long  heavy  cleats.  The  wood  used  for  all  this  was  taken  from  the  remains 
of  what  had  served  as  derricks,  platforms,  capstans,  and  ways  ;  the  master  carpenter,  Elies,  skilled  by 
that  time  in  economizing  material,  managed  to  make  good  use  of  stuff  that  would  probably  have  been 
condemned  as  valueless  in  any  dockyard. 

Eight  weary  months  had  to  be  passed  before  the  rise  of  the  Nile  would  float  the  craft ;  we  will 
pass  over  that  period  without  remark,  and  with  but  a  pitying  thought  for  those  who  had  to  drag 
disconsolately  through  it. 

In  the  early  part  of  June  a  decrease  in  the  transparency  of  the  water,  accompanied  by  oscillations 
in  its  level,  announced  that  the  annual  rise  was  at  hand.  While  the  Arab  women  sang  praises  on 
the  banks  of  the  river,  and  the  priests  heralded  the  glad  tidings  from  the  mosque  door,  the 
Frenchmen  set  to  and  dug  away  the  sand  that  had  been  piled  up  around  their  vessel  and  constantly 
wetted  to  protect  it  from  the  sun.  On  the  18th  of  August  the  “Luxor”  floated,  and  on  the  25th 
started  down  the  river  under  the  guidance  of  two  pilots.  As  the  anchor  was  dropped  every  evening 
progress  was  but  slow,  and  Rosetta  was  not  reached  until  the  1st  of  October,  when  it  transpired  that 
the  pass  which  had  been  navigable  twelve  days  before,  was  then  closed.  There  seemed  to  be  no 
help  for  it,  and  that  entire  month  was  passed  in  hoping  for  a  slightly  increased  rise. 

Plans  were  then  made  of  camels  to  lighten  the  draught.  Plate  xxxiv  gives  an  idea  of  these.  The 
frames  of  the  “  Luxor  ”  not  being  strong  enough  to  stand  the  upward  pressure  from  these  caissons, 
it  was  decided  that  stout  timbers  should  be  passed  across  from  one  to  the  other,  and  the  cables 
taken  from  them  round  the  obelisk  instead  of  round  the  vessel.  The  weight  would  be  thus  diminished 
by  the  amount  of  buoyancy  in  the  camels,  the  draught  diminished  in  proportion,  and  no  strain  put 
on  the  timbers  of  the  transport. 

The  bad  season  had  been  reached,  however,  and  the  pilots  asserted  that  this  combination  of 
vessels  could  not  put  to  sea  until  the  spring.  The  assurances  of  these  men  seem  to  have  been 
given  great  weight,  and  their  advice  followed  rather  unquestioningly.  The  “  Luxor  ”  was  laid  up  off 
Rosetta  for  the  winter,  and  would  probably  have  remained  there  that  length  of  time  but  for  a  fortunate 
accident.  A  bark,  loaded  with  oranges,  had  sunk  near  the  mouth,  and  while  raising  her  it  was 
discovered  that  a  pass  had  formed.  Orders  were  immediately  given  to  prepare  for  sea,  and  on  the 
1st  of  January,  at  eleven  in  the  evening,  after  touching  once  or  twice  on  the  bar,  the  “Luxor” 
entered  the  Mediterranean  and  proceeded  to  Alexandria  in  tow  of  the  steamer  “  Sphinx.”  Delayed  there 
again  by  bad  weather,  the  anchor  was  finally  weighed  on  the  1st  of  April,  and  after  a  stormy  passage 
compelling  the  captain  to  seek  shelter  at  Rhodes,  Marmara,  Milo,  Navarino,  Zantes,  and  Corfu,  the 
obelisk  reached  the  port  of  Toulon  during  the  night  of  the  10th  of  May,  1833. 

A  month’s  quarantine  awaited  the  poor  fellows  there,  after  which  M.  LeBas,  having  completed 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


89 


the  task  allotted  him,  was  summoned  to  Paris.  After  an  interview  with  M.  Thiers,  then  Minister  of 
Commerce  and  Public  Works,  he  was  informed  that  the  work  of  erecting  the  obelisk  in  Paris  would  be 
entrusted  to  him  in  the  hope  that  he  would  successfully  finish  the  operations  he  had  so  skilfully  begun. 
But  it  was  not  until  August  that  he  was  apprised  of  the  decision,  which  was  a  pity,  because,  as  will 
be  seen,  a  whole  season  was  nearly  lost  by  slight  delays. 

While  the  “  Luxor  ”  was  being  examined  in  dock  at  Toulon,  towed  to  Rouen,  and  thence  up  the 
Seine,  preparatory  work  was  begun  in  Paris.  The  Place  de  la  Concorde  having  been  selected  as  the 
site  for  the  obelisk,  the  foot  of  the  western  ramp  at  the  Pont  de  la  Concorde  was  naturally  chosen 
for  the  disembarkation.  The  river  being  still  low,  work  was  immediately  begun  to  clear  away  that 
part  of  the  bank  preparatory  to  laying  the  ways  on  which  the  vessel  would  be  grounded.  M.  LeBas’ 
plan  was  to  carry  the  slope  of  the  ramp  down  so  that  the  “  Luxor  ”  could  be  grounded  at  that  angle, 
and  the  obelisk  hauled  directly  out.  But  an  inopportune  strike  among  the  workmen  in  Paris  brought 
about  a  delay  that  compelled  him  to  give  that  up.  During  the  delay  the  river  rose,  and  when  work 
was  resumed  a  timber-bed  had  to  be  built  above  water  and  sunk  in  place,  the  men  working  in  water 
up  to  their  armpits. 

The  surface  of  this  bed  was  horizontal,  and  the  obelisk,  therefore,  would  have  to  come  out  of 
the  vessel  at  an  angle  with  the  ramp.  To  overcome  this  difficulty  a  wedge-shaped  cradle  was  built, 
the  lower  part  resting  on  the  ways,  but  the  upper  being  horizontal  and  on  a  line  with  the  keelsons 
of  the  “  Luxor.”  The  obelisk  would  be  hauled  on  the  cradle,  and  then  cradle  and  all  pulled  up  the 
ramp. 

On  the  23d  of  December,  1833,  the  “  Luxor”  was  in  place,  but  it  was  not  until  the  following  August 
that  the  falling  of  the  river  permitted  opening  the  bow  ;  on  the  9th  of  that  month  two  hundred 
and  forty  soldiers  manned  the  capstans,  and  the  obelisk  was  pulled  out  and  landed  on  the  cradle.  On 
the  following  day  the  movable  blocks  of  the  tackles  were  shifted  from  the  obelisk  to  the  cradle,  and 
by  four  that  afternoon  they  both  reached  the  quay  at  the  head  of  the  ramp. 

The  power  required  for  this  operation  was  computed  to  be  about  fifty- two  tons,  but  the  friction 
caused  by  a  weight  moving  up  an  inclined  plane,  the  surfaces  being  greased,  is  such  an  intangible 
quantity  that  it  was  decided  to  furnish  nearly  double  that.  Five  sixfold  purchases  were  rigged,  each 
with  its  capstan  manned  by  forty-eight  men ;  the  total  effective  power  thus  applied,  granting  each 
man  to  heave  twenty-two  pounds,  was  about  ninety-four  tons. 

During  the  remainder  of  the  journey  of  the  obelisk  to  its  future  position  in  the  centre  of  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde,  it  had  to  change  direction  several  times  in  both  vertical  and  horizontal 
planes.  To  effect  the  former,  for  each  slope  or  grade  a  cradle  was  constructed  of  wedge-shape 
similar  to  the  one  used  on  the  ramp  at  the  river  bank,  the  upper  surfaces  of  all  being  horizontal  ; 
on  reaching  the  point  where  the  change  of  grade  occurred  the  obelisk  was  hauled  from  one  to  the 
other,  thus  remaining  always  horizontal.  There  were  only  two  lateral  changes  of  direction  to  be 
effected  :  one  was  just  beyond  the  head  of  the  ramp,  to  clear  the  ditch  in  the  angle  of  the  square  ; 
the  other,  almost  a  right  angle,  was  where  this  second  track  met  the  direct  one  leading  to  the  centre 
of  the  square.  To  perform  these  turnings  the  cradle  was  hauled  until  the  centre  of  gravity  was  over 
the  intersection  of  the  two  ways,  where  a  stout  pivotal  stake  had  been  driven ;  the  cradle  was 
revolved  over  and  around  that.  Heavy  cross-timbers  connecting  and  filling  the  angle  between  the 
two  ways  supported  both  head  and  and  heel  of  the  obelisk  ;  being  well  greased  the  cradle  slipped  easily 
over  them,  and  it  needed  no  great  power  to  pull  the  two  ends  in  opposite  directions.  The  usual 
pulleys  were  used  for  this. 

All  this  work  was  sadly  delayed  by  having  to  wait  a  long  time  for  the  pedestal.  By  a  strange 
neglect  it  was  not  until  after  landing  the  obelisk  that  the  design  of  the  pedestal  was  determined. 
The  granite  was  to  come  from  Laber-il-dut,  on  the  coast  of  Brittany,  and  in  the  original  plan  twenty- 


9° 


Removal  of  the  Litxor  Obelisk  to  Pans . 

seven  pieces  were  shown  ;  but  the  contractor  having  discovered  a  rock  in  that  bay,  from  which  a 
block  could  be  quarried  sixteen  feet  long  by  ten  square,  the  number  was  reduced  to  five.  The  total 
weight  of  the  pedestal  is  about  236  1-4  tons.  The  “  Luxor  ”  and  “  Sphinx  ”  were  detailed  for  that 
service,  and  started  as  soon  as  the  former  could  be  floated  again. 

This  neglect,  causing  such  a  great  delay,  seems  inexplicable,  and  must  have  been  due  to  some 
concatenation  of  circumstances,  political  or  other,  the  record  of  which  may  have  been  swallowed  in 
the  graver  events  of  those  troubled  times.  However  that  may  be,  the  obelisk  lay  inert  for  many 
months  ;  it  was  not  until  the  8th  of  September,  1836,  that  it  was  placed  on  the  last  cradle,  which 
was  to  carry  it  up  the  slope  leading  to  the  top  of  the  pedestal. 

This  final  ramp  was  built  of  masonry,  with  a  rise  of  eight  feet  in  a  hundred.  The  intention  at 
first  was  to  use  a  steam-engine  to  haul  the  obelisk  up  this  incline,  and  much  enthusiasm  was  felt  at 
the  idea  ;  but  unfortunately  the  machine  broke  down  in  a  preliminary  trial,  and  the  same  old  capstans 
and  tackles  had  to  be  resorted  to  again. 

An  article  that  appeared  in  this  connection,  in  the  Journal  des  Dibats ,  of  October  16,  1836,  is 
doubly  interesting,  portraying  as  it  did  the  feelings  akin  to  awe  with  which  that  motor,  since  become 
so  familiar,  was  then  regarded.  The  following  is  an  extract : 

“  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  sufficient  precautions  were  not  taken  to  ensure  this  engine  working 
satisfactorily.  The  idea  of  inaugurating  the  steam-engine  on  so  solemn  an  occasion  was  most  happy.  For  a 
part  of  the  public  the  steam-engine  is  of  the  unknown,  a  mysterious  and  formidable  creation  liable  to  explode 
like  thunder.  It  would  have  been  well  to  associate  the  monuments  of  antique  art  with  one  of  the  finest 
productions  of  the  inventive  mind  of  modern  times.  It  would  have  been  well  to  show  two  hundred  thousand 
people  one  of  these  engines,  so  foolishly  dreaded  by  the  ignorant,  seizing  the  obelisk  of  Sesostris,  and  raising 
it  little  by  little  with  perfect  regularity  of  motion,  without  the  aid  of  a  living  being,  excepting  the  one  man 
charged  with  supplying  coal  to  the  furnace,  the  soul  of  the  engine.  These  machines  are  destined  to  relieve 
man  of  all  work  that  needs  only  brute  force,  and  even,  such  is  their  perfection,  of  some  work  that  may  seem  to 
demand  guidance  from  an  intelligent  being.  The  steam-engine  is  one  of  the  greatest  triumphs  of  mind  over 
matter ;  it  is  nature  made  captive,  working  for  man,  and  in  man’s  stand.  It  is  nature  enslaved  ;  and  it  is  the 
only  slave,  the  only  serf  of  the  future.” 

The  writer  of  those  lines  probably  had  as  little  thought  of  the  future  of  the  electric  current  as 
we  now  have  of — what  ? 

No  difficulty  was  experienced  in  pulling  the  obelisk  up  the  ramp  ;  five  hours  sufficed  to  bring 
it  close  to  the  pedestal.  Great  care  was  then  necessary.  Advancing  up  the  greased  incline  not 
steadily  but  in  jumps  of  one  to  two  feet  at  a  time,  it  finally  came  to  within  an  inch  of  the  line  that 
the  edge  of  the  base  had  to  cover,  and  to  make  it  come  just  to  but  not  beyond  that  line  was  a  problem 
involving  delicate  manipulation  of  a  great  power.  To  do  it  the  tackles  were  stretched  taut,  and  the 
capstans  then  stopped  ;  with  this  strain  on,  the  very  slight  movement  required  was  imparted  by  giving 
two  slight  ramming  blows  to  the  Needle. 

The  modus  operandi  in  erecting  the  obelisk  was  the  same,  reversed,  as  that  of  lowering  it  in 
Egypt,  except  that  only  one  rotation  was  necessary  and  possible.  As  before,  the  edge  of  the  base 

which  was  to  constitute  the  axis  of  rotation  was  let  in  to  a  heavy  beam  of  wood,  rounded  on 

the  opposite  side  and  free  to  revolve  in  a  corresponding  groove  in  another  beam.  This  last  rested 
in  a  step  which  unfortunately  had  to  be  cut  in  the  top  and  side  of  the  pedestal.  M.  LeBas 

proposed  two  ways  of  obviating  the  necessity  of  so  disfiguring  the  plinth,  but  he  seems  to  have 

been  not  entirely  unhampered  in  the  prosecution  of  this  work,  and  the  step  was  cut. 

The  gear  for  raising  the  point  of  the  Needle  consisted  of  ten  derricks  rigged  as  previously 
described.  See  Plate  xxxiii.  The  derrick-heads  were  connected  with  the  obelisk  five  feet  below  the 
base  of  the  pyramidion  by  ten  cables  or  shrouds ;  on  the  other  side  were  frapped  the  movable 
blocks  of  as  many  seven-fold  tackles,  the  hauling  parts  of  which  were  taken  to  capstans.  By 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris.  9 1 

heaving  on  these,  the  derricks  would  first  be  acted  upon,  and  the  power  transmitted  from  them 
through  the  shrouds  to  the  head  of  the  obelisk. 

During  the  contemplated  rotation  it  is  evident  that  a  great  and  increasing  weight  would  be 
thrown  on  the  side  of  the  pedestal  supporting  the  axis ;  furthermore,  owing  to  the  angle  at  which 
the  power  was  to  be  applied,  the  horizontal  component  of  that  weight  would  at  certain  periods  of 

the  ascent  be  very  great,  and  constitute  a  lateral  thrust  that  would  inevitably  overturn  the  pedestal 

if  left  unsupported.  To  prevent  this  two  huge  timber  props  were  inclined  against  the  outer  face 
of  the  block,  their  upper  ends  being  kept  from  slipping  up  by  hanging-pieces  bolted  to  timbers 
secured  underneath  all. 

As  regards  the  weight  to  be  lifted  and  the  consequent  power  to  be  produced,  although  the 
actual  weight  remained  the  same,  yet  the  obelisk  being  now  horizontal,  the  strain  on  the  shrouds, 
derricks,  and  tackles  at  the  beginning  of  the  ascent  would  be  greater  than  at  the  end  of  the  descent 
in  Egypt,  when  it  still  lay  at  a  considerable  angle  with  the  horizon.  With  the  derricks  stepped  as 
shown  in  the  plate,  the  shrouds  coming  to  the  obelisk  at  nearly  a  right  angle,  the  strain  to  be  stood 
by  them  at  first  would  be  almost  one  half  the  total  weight  of  the  monolith,  decreasing  to  zero  as  the 
vertical  from  the  centre  of  gravity  passed  within  the  base.  The  tension  on  the  shrouds,  on  account 
of  the  angle  formed  by  the  ropes  and  the  derricks,  was  found  to  correspond  to  a  maximum  tension 
of  about  one  hundred  and  three  tons  on  the  tackles,  decreasing  to  zero  during  the  ascent.  Allowance 
made  for  friction,  four  hundred  and  eighty  men  heaving  twenty-five  pounds  each  on  the  capstans 
would  produce  a  power  of  one  hunred  and  thirteen  tons.  This  could  be  easily  increased  if  desired. 

To  secure  the  fixed  blocks  of  the  tackles  the  following  plan  was  adopted  :  At  a  certain  distance 

in  rear  of  the  pedestal  two  rows  of  heavy  piles  were  driven  vertically  in  a  pit,  and  mortised  into 
horizontal  timbers,  the  whole  being  weighted  with  iron  ballast.  A  similar  fabric  was  constructed  a 
few  yards  farther  to  the  rear,  except  that  one  row  of  piles  was  considered  sufficient.  A  row  of  spurs, 
somewhat  similar  to  the  hoisting  derricks  but  much  smaller,  was  erected  on  the  first  platform,  and 
the  long  straps  of  the  fixed  blocks  passing  over  those  spurs’  heads  were  lashed  to  both  platforms. 
The  ballast  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  two  tons.  It  was  estimated  that  the  entire  fabric  would 
stand  a  strain  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-one  tons  from  the  direction  in  which  the  tackles  would  pull, 
or  about  eighty-eight  tons  more  than  required. 

By  October  24th  every  thing  was  ready,  and  at  noon  of  that  day  a  preliminary  pull  was  given  to 
try  the  gear.  It  worked  so  well  that  M.  LeBas  was  anxious  to  continue  and  complete  the  erection, 

but  royal  orders  compelled  him  to  defer  it  until  the  next  day. 

On  the  morning  of  the  25th  an  immense  crowd  gathered  in  the  Place  de  la  Concorde,  the  Champs 
Elysees,  and  the  terraces  of  the  Tuileries  gardens.  It  was  estimated  that  two  hundred  thousand  people 
were  present  to  witness  the  last  stage  of  the  formidable  and  protracted  operations.  A  cedar  box 
was  placed  in  a  cavity  in  the  pedestal,  containing  a  set  of  the  gold  and  silver  current  coins  of  the 
realm,  also  two  medals  bearing  the  effigy  of  the  king  and  the  following  inscription  :  “  Sous  le  regne 

de  Louis  Philippe  I,  roi  des  Frangais,  M.  de  Gasparin  etant  ministre  de  1’  interieur,  1’  obelisque  de 

‘  Luxor’  a  ete  eleve  sur  son  piedestal  le  2  5  octobre,  1836,  par  les  soins  de  M.  Apollinaire  LeBas, 

ingenieur  de  la  marine.” 

At  half  past  eleven  M.  LeBas  placed  himself  on  the  ledges  of  the  pedestal,  whence  he  could 
command  a  view  of  the  entire  scene  of  operations,  and  the  artillerymen,  under  the  command  of  Captain 
Meeunier,  began  walking  round  the  capstans  to  the  sound  of  the  bugle  ;  the  immense  power  was 
gradually  transmitted  through  the  apparently  intricate  maze  of  rope,  and  the  point  of  the  Needle  rose 
majestically  in  air.  At  twelve  loud  cheers  greeted  the  arrival  of  the  king,  accompanied  by  the  queen 
and  members  of  the  royal  family,  at  the  windows  of  the  Ministry  of  Marine.  The  circular  march  at 
the  capstans  was  continued,  uninterrupted  until  a  vibration  was  noticed  in  the  whole  fabric,  accompanied 


92 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 

by  a  cracking  as  of  wood ;  but  this  was  soon  found  to  be  caused  simply  by  the  great  compression 
and  not  by  the  displacement  of  any  parts.  So  M.  LeBas  resumed  his  place  on  the  pedestal,  and 
gave  the  order  to  heave  at  the  double  quick  to  pass  the  angle  of  forty-five  degrees,  in  which  position 
the  strain  on  the  pedestal  was  greatest.  Forty-five  minutes  sufficed  to  bring  the  obelisk  thirty-five 
degrees  nearer  the  position  of  equilibrium,  when  another  stoppage  became  necessary.  The  chains 
leading  from  the  top  of  the  obelisk  toward  the  river,  to  hold  it  as  the  vertical  passed  within  the 
base,  had  been  fastened,  or,  in  nautical  parlance,  stopped  along  the  pyramidion  to  keep  them  out  of 
the  way.  An  order  had  been  given  to  clear  them  the  day  before  but  had  been  forgotten,  and  it 
was  necessary  to  do  so  now  before  the  chains  should  tighten,  because  the  stops  in  breaking  under  a 
heavy  strain  would  cause  a  dangerous  jarring.  Two  sailors  immediately  jumped  aloft  and  released 
them,  and  the  capstans  were  again  started,  but  more  slowly.  Three  turns  were  hove,  then  two,  then 
one,  then  half  a  one,  and  so  on  until,  the  position  of  equilibrium  being  gently  and  slowly  passed,  the 
cables  were  seen  to  tighten  and  take  the  weight.  The  tackles  on  the  chains  were  slacked  carefully, 
and  in  three  hours  and  a  half  from  the  *  beginning  of  the  operation,  and  five  years  and  a  day  from 
the  time  it  was  lowered  in  Thebes,  the  Egyptian  obelisk  rested  safely  and  securely  on  the  Breton 
rock  that  formed  its  new  pedestal. 

Brought  from  the  silent  ruins  of  the  greatest  city  of  the  ancient  world,  to  the  brightest  and 
gayest  of  modern  capitals,  this  hoary  monument  now  marks  the  spot  where  the  equestrian  statue 
of  Louis  XV  once  stood,  and  where  that  monarch’s  unfortunate  grandson  expiated  the  crime  of  royal 
misgovernment.  Unmindful  perhaps  of  the  dire  associations  called  forth,  but  impressed  by  the 
delicacy  of  the  operation  just  completed,  the  immense  throng  turned  to  their  venerable  sovereign 
and  rent  the  air  with  prolonged  vivats.  National  ensigns  soon  waved  from  the  summit,  and,  as  night 
approached,  brilliant  illuminations  kept  the  base  revealed  to  the  numerous  groups  of  promenaders.  Nor 
was  the  general  enthusiasm  at  all  diminished  by  the  distribution  among  the  workmen  that  evening  of 
3,000  francs,  presented  by  the  king. 

It  was  some  time  before  all  the  gear  was  removed  and  the  lofty  shaft  and  pedestal  exposed  in 
their  grand  simplicity.  As  a  protection  against  a  climate  so  much  more  rigorous  than  that  of  its  native 
land,  the  surface  of  the  obelisk  was  covered  with  a  concentrated  solution  of  caoutchouc.  Later,  diagrams 
and  inscriptions  were  carved  upon  the  pedestal  and  handsomely  gilded.  On  the  side  facing  the 
Madeleine  are  illustrations  in  outline  of  the  operations  of  lowering  and  embarking  the  monolith  ;  on 
the  side  next  the  river  are  shown  the  apparatus  used  in  its  erection. 

On  the  side  turned  toward  the  Tuileries  gardens  is  the  inscription  : 

“  Ludovicus  Philippus  I,  Francorum  Rex,  ut  antiquissimum  artis  Tigyptiacae  opus,  idemque  recentis  gloriae 
ad  Nilum  armis  partae  insigne  monumentum,  Franciae  ab  ipsa  ALgypto  donatum  posteritati  prorogaret,  obeliscum 
die  25.  Aug.  A.  1832  Thebis  Hecatompylis  avectum  navique  ad  id  constructa  intra  menses  13  in  Galliam  per- 
ductum  erigendum  curavit.  Die  25  Octobris  anni  1836.  Anno  reg.  septimo.” 

Facing  the  Champs  Elysees  the  inscription  reads  : 

“  En  presence  du  Roi  Louis  Philippe  Ier,  cet  ob^lisque,  transport^  de  Louqsor  en  France,  a  6t6  dress£  sur 
ce  pLdestal  par  M.  LeBas,  ing^nieur,  aux  applaudissements  d’  un  peuple  immense,  le  25  octobre,  1836.” 

Models  of  all  the  apparatus  used  were  also  deposited  in  the  Musee  de  Marine,  and  are  still 
to  be  seen  there. 

As  was  stated  above,  five  years  and  a  day  elapsed  between  the  dates  of  lowering  and  re-erecting 
this  obelisk.  That  seems  a  long  time,  and  unreflecting  critics  may  pass  adverse  judgment  on  the  skill 
of  M.  LeBas.  A  word  on  this  matter  may  therefore  not  be  amiss.  Returning  for  the  nonce  to  Upper 
Egypt,  we  see  that  the  obelisk  was  lowered  and  embarked  in  the  “  Luxor  ”  in  five  months  from  the 
date  of  the  arrival  of  the  party,  in  spite  of  undeniably  grave  obstacles.  There  was  then  a  forced  delay 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris. 


93 


of  eight  months  before  the  rising  Nile  floated  the  vessel.  Almost  immediately  on  top  of  that,  three 
months  were  thrown  away  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  cross  the  Rosetta  bar,  and  fully  two  more  in 
Alexandria  waiting  for  fair  weather  before  putting  to  sea.  The  worst  delays,  however,  did  not  take 
place  in  Egypt.  On  the  banks  of  the  busy  Seine  the  ebb  and  flow  of  waters  was  no  more  generous 
than  in  Thebes,  and  the  “  Luxor,”  floated  over  the  bed  prepared  on  the  ramp  at  the  Pont  de  la 
Concorde  on  the  23d  of  December,  was  not  left  high  and  dry  enough  for  operations  until  the  following 
August.  The  delay  resulting  from  the  neglect  in  not  selecting  a  suitable  pedestal  in  time  was  touched 
upon  above  ;  for  twenty-two  months  the  monolith  lay  untouched,  while  its  pedestal  was  being  quarried, 
transported,  and  put  in  place.  Surely  those  forty-two  months  lost  cannot  be  laid  reproachfully  at  the 
door  of  the  officer  who  was  merely  given  a  suitable  vessel,  some  spars  and  ropes,  and  told  to  go  to 
Thebes  and  bring  the  Needle  home  and  erect  it  again.  Nor  is  it  perhaps  necessary  to  invite  attention 
to  the  unadvanced  state  of  the  mechanical  arts  in  that  day  as  compared  to  the  present  time  when  steam, 
hydraulic  and  electric  power  are  regarded  as  mere  journeymen  laborers. 

The  cost  of  the  undertaking  was  apparently  very  great,  though  the  exact  figures  are  not  known. 
The  total  expenditure  is  said  to  have  been  about  two  and  a  half  millions  of  francs,  or  $5oo,ooo  ;  in 
that,  are  included  the  expenses  of  Baron  Taylor’s  mission,  the  maintenance  of  a  numerous  personnel, 
and  the  purchase,  quarrying,  and  transport  of  an  immense  pedestal. 

Regard  being  had  for  all  the  circumstances,  the  verdict  of  even  the  present  rapid  day  must  be  that 
M.  LeBas  reflected  honor  on  his  country  and  his  profession  and  richly  deserved  the  meed  of  praise 
bestowed  upon  him  at  the  time.  On  the  nth  of  November  he  received  the  following  letter  from  the 
Minister  of  the  Interior. 


Sir  :  The  erection  of  the  Luxor  obelisk  has  met  with  unanimous  approval  from  the  King  and  the  public. 
It  is  with  genuine  satisfaction  that  I  send  you  my  congratulations  on  the  success  of  this  important  operation. 

A  medal  having  been  struck  to  commemorate  the  event,  I  send  you  two  copies  of  it,  one  in  silver,  and  one 
in  bronze. 

I  have  the  honor  to  announce  to  you  at  the  same  time  that  I  have  decided  to  allow  you,  as  indemnity  for 
your  cares  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work,  the  sum  of  4,000  francs. 

I  have  not  forgotten,  sir,  the  favorable  mention  you  made  of  persons  engaged  in  this  work  under  your 
direction ;  gratuities  in  proportion  to  their  services  are  granted  them  as  follows : 


To  M.  Lepage,  Second  Inspector,  . 
“  M.  Heurteloup,  First  Inspector, 
“  M.  Labrie,  Carpenter’s  mate, 

“  M.  Dacheux,  Boatswain’s  mate, 


1,500  francs. 
1,000  “ 

300  “ 

300  “ 


To  M.  Card,  Storekeeper, 

“  M.  Morel,  Boatswain’s  mate, 

“  M.  Masqueron,  Boatswain’s  mate, 
“  M.  Monot,  Carpenter’s  mate, 


300  francs. 
200  “ 

200  “ 

200  “ 


I  request  that  you  will  acquaint  them  with  the  fact  of  these  sums  having  been  awarded,  and  notify  them 
that  the  payments  will  be  ordered  immediately. 


Receive,  &c., 


(Signed)  GASPARIN. 


M.  Lepage  was  further  rewarded  by  being  decorated  with  the  cross  of  the  Legion  of  Honor. 

Nor  did  official  recognition  of  M.  LeBas’  services  end  with  the  small  donation  mentioned  in  M. 
de  Gasparin’s  letter.  The  king  appointed  him  Director  of  the  Naval  Museum,  which,  together  with  the 
riband  of  the  Legion  of  Honor  conferred  some  time  before,  constituted  a  lasting  memorial  of  his 
success. 

For  a  record  of  this  obelisk  see  remaining  obelisk  at  Luxor,  chapter  vi.  The  original 
pedestal  that  was  left  at  Luxor,  where  it  now  remains,  was  sculptured  in  very  high  relief  with  figures 


94 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris . 


of  the  dog-headed  ape,  the  god  ’of  sciences  and  arts.  The  Nile  god,  incised  on  two  of  its  faces,  is 
represented  as  bringing  in  the  products  of  thes  country.  Chabas,  in  “  Traduction  complete  des  inscriptions 
hieroglyphiques  de  1’  obelisque  de  Luxor,  a  Paris,”  gives  the  following  translation  of  the  characters 
on  the  Paris  obelisk.1  It  is  the  latest  and  doubtless  the  best  of  the  many  translations  that  have  been 
made  at  different  times  and  published  in  Europe. 

NORTH  SIDE  FACING  THE  MADELEINE. 

Vignette:  Rameses  II  on  his  knees  offering  two  vases  of  wine  to  Ammon-Ra. 

Cartouch  of  Rameses  II :  The  master  of  the  two  worlds ,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Lord  of  the  diadems.  Mei-AMMON- 
RAMSES. 

The  god  says  to  the  king  :  “  I  give  thee  perfect  health,  I  give  thee  life,  stability  and  perfect  happiness.” 

EAST  SIDE  FACING  THE  TUILERIES. 

Vignette  :  The  same  subject  as  before. 

Cartouch:  The  good  god,  master  of  the  two  worlds,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Lord  of  the  diadems,  Mei- 
AMMON-RAMSES,  vivifying  like  the  sun. 

WEST  SIDE  FACING  THE  CHAMPS  ELYS1EES. 

Same  offering. 

Cartouch :  The  good  god,  master  of  the  two  worlds,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Lord  of  the  diadems,  Mei- 
AMMON-RAMSES,  vivifying  like  the  sun  eternally. 

SOUTH  SIDE  FACING  THE  PALAIS  LEGISLATIF. 

Rameses  II  making  an  offering  of  water  to  Ammon-Ra. 

Cartouch :  The  good  god,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  MEI-AMMON-RAMSES,  who  gives  life, 
stability  and  happiness,  like  the  sun.  AMMON-RA  tells  him  (to  the  king)  “  I  give  thee  perfect  joy.” 

NORTH  SIDE  FACING  THE  MADELEINE.  CENTRAL  COLUMN  OF  HIEROGLYPHICS. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull  of  the  sun,  who  has  smitten  the  barbarians,  Lord  of  the  diadems,  who  fights 
millions,  magnanimous  lion,  Golden  Hawk,  strongest  on  all  the  world,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  bull  at  his  limit,  obliging  the 
whole  earth  to  come  before  him,  by  the  will  of  Ammon  his  august  father. 

He  has  made  ( the  obelisk)  the  Son  of  the  sun  Mei-AMMON-RAMSES  “  living  eternally.” 

COLUMN  OF  HIEROGLYPHICS  TO  LEFT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  the  strongest  (of  the  strongest)  who  fights  with  his  sword,  king  of  great 
roarings,  master  of  terror,  whose  valor  strikes  the  whole  earth,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR- 
MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-AMMON-RAMSES  whose  dominion  is  twice  cherished  like  that  of  the 
god  inhabiting  Thebes,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei- 
AMMON-RAMSES  “  the  vivifier.” 

COLUMN  TO  RIGHT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  the  grandee  of  the  triacontaerid  fetes,  who  loves  the  two  worlds,  king  strong 
by  his  sword,  who  has  seized  both  worlds,  supreme  chief  whose  royalty  is  great  as  that  of  the  god  Tum,  King 
of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-AMMON-RAMSES.  The  chiefs  of  the 
entire  world  are  under  his  feet;  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun, 
Mei-ammon-ramses  “  vivifier.” 


EAST  SIDE  FACING  THE  TUILERIES.  CENTRAL  COLUMN. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  fighting  with  his  sword,  Lord  of  the  diadems,  who  subdues  (strikes  down) 
whoever  nears  him,  who  seizes  the  ends  of  the  world,  Golden  Hawk,  very  terrible,  master  of  valor,  King  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  divine  issue  of  his  father  Ammon,  Lord  of  gods.  Causing  to  be  joyous 
the  temple  of  the  soul  and  the  gods  of  the  great  temple  in  joy.  He  has  made  the  obelisk  the  Son  of  the 
sun  Mei-ammon-ramses  “  living  eternally.” 

COLUMN  TO  LEFT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  Son  of  Ammon,  how  multiplied  are  his  monuments!  the  very  strong,  beloved 
Son  of  the  sun,  on  his  throne,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun, 
Mei-AMMON-RAMSES,  who  has  erected  the  dwelling  of  Ammon  (Thebes),  like  the  heavenly  horizon,  by  his  great 
monuments  for  eternity,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  Son  of  the  sun,  MEI-AMMON-RAMSES  “vivifier.” 


'Copied  from  vol.  iv,  “Records  of  the  Past,”  London,  1875. 


Removal  of  the  Luxor  Obelisk  to  Paris . 


95 


COLUMN  TO  RIGHT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HoRUS-sun,  strong  ‘bull,  beloved  of  the  goddess  Truth,  king  doubly  cherished  as  the  god  Tum, 
supreme  chief,  delight  of  Ammon-RA  for  centuries  ;  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA, 
Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-AMMON-RAMSES  :  what  is  heaven,  that  (such)  is  thy  monument ;  thy  name  will  be  permanent 
like  the  heavens,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  Ousor-MA-ra,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-ammon- 
RAMSES  “vivifier.” 

WEST  SIDE  FACING  THE  CHAMPS  ELYS^ES.  CENTRAL  COLUMN. 

The  HoRUS-sun,  strong  bull,  beloved  of  the  goddess  Truth  (ma)  Lord  of  the  diadems,  who  takes  care  of 
Egypt  and  chastises  nations;  Golden  Hawk,  master  of  armies,  the  very  strong,  the  King  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  king  of  kings,  issue  of  Tum,  one  in  body  with  him  to  perform  his  royalty  on  earth  for 
centuries,  and  to  render  happy  Ammon’s  dwelling  by  benefactions.  He  has  made  (the  obelisk )  the  Son  of  the 
sun  Mei-AMMON-RAMSES  “  living  eternally.” 


COLUMN  TO  LEFT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  rich  in  valor,  king  potent  by  the  sword,  who  has  made  himself  master  of  the 
whole  world  by  his  strength,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei- 
AMMON-RAMSES ;  all  countries  of  the  earth  come  to  him  with  their  tributes,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt 
Ousor-MA-ra,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-ammon-Ramses  “  vivifier.” 

COLUMN  TO  RIGHT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HoRUS-sun,  strong  bull,  beloved  of  the  sun,  king  who  is  a  great  plague  (to  his  enemies);  the  whole 
earth  trembles  in  terror  of  him,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun 
(Mei-ammon-Ramses),  Son  of  Mont,  whom  Mont  has  formed  with  his  hand,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt 
Ousor-MA-ra,  Sotep-EN-ra,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-ammon-Ramses  “  vivifier.” 

SOUTH  SIDE  FACING  THE  PALAIS  L1SGISLATIF.  CENTRAL  COLUMN. 

The  HoRUS-sun,  strong  bull,  very  valorous,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA, 
eldest  son  of  the  king  of  the  gods,  who  has  raised  him  on  his  throne  on  the  earth,  like  an  unique  Lord,  possessor 
of  the  whole  world  ;  he  knows  him,  as  he  (the  king)  has  done  homage  to  him  by  bringing  to  perfection  his 
dwelling  for  millions  of  years,  mark  of  the  preference  he  had  in  the  Southern  Ap  for  his  father,  who  will  prefer 
him  for  millions  of  years.  He  has  made  (the  obelisk)  the  Son  of  the  sun  MEI-AMMON-RAMSES  “vivifier”  eternal 
as  the  sun. 


COLUMN  TO  LEFT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HORUS-sun,  strong  bull,  loved  by  the  goddess  Truth  (ma),  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR- 
MA-RA,  Sotep-EN-ra,  Son  of  the  sun,  Mei-ammon-Ramses,  Scion  of  the  sun,  protected  by  Harmachis,  illustrious 
seed,  precious  egg  of  the  sacred  Eye,  emanation  of  the  king  of  the  gods,  to  be  the  unique  Lord,  possessor  of 
the  whole  world,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP-EN-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  MeI-ammon- 
RAMSES  “  eternal  vivifier.” 


COLUMN  TO  RIGHT  OF  SPECTATOR. 

The  HoRUS-sun,  strong  bull,  beloved  of  the  sun,  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  SOTEP- 
EN-RA  Son  of  the  sun,  MEI-AMMON-RAMSES  king  excellent,  warlike,  vigilant  to  seek  the  favors  of  him  who  has 
begotten  him  :  thy  name  is  permanent  as  the  heavens  ;  the  length  of  thy  life  is  like  the  solar  disk  therein  (the 
heavens),  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  OUSOR-MA-RA,  Son  of  the  sun,  MEI-AMMON-RAMSES  eternal  vivifier 
like  the  sun. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


REMOVAL  OF  THE  FALLEN  OBELISK  OF  ALEXANDRIA  TO  LONDON. 

BY  LIEUTENANT  SEATON  SCHROEDER,  UNITED  STATES  NAVY. 

VIEWED  in  the  light  of  modern  associations,  the  London  obelisk  carries  one  back  to  the  opening 
of  the  present  century,  when  the  struggle  on  the  oft-disputed  battle  ground  of  Egypt  resulted  in 
favor  of  the  British.  Hence  a  tendency  to  regard  it  as  a  trophy  of  victory.  It  is  more  commonly 
looked  upon,  however,  as  a  monument  of  Egyptian  gratitude  for  the  victories  achieved  three  quarters 
of  a  century  prior  to  its  final  rendition.  In  truth,  the  numerous  episodes  that  occurred  after  the  first, 
unsuccessful,  attempt  to  remove  it  in  1801,  were  so  varied  as  to  leave  little  foundation  for  either 
sentiment.  It  certainly  could  have  been  with  but  diplomatic  frankness  that  Mohammed  Ali  presented 
this  obelisk  to  England  in  recognition  of  services  rendered  to  Egypt  at  the  beginning  of  the  century, 
when  at  the  same  time  he  gave  a  handsomer  one  to  the  nation  over  whose  forces  gallant  Nelson 
and  Abercromby  had  won  their  victories.  Moreover,  as  will  be  seen  farther  on,  the  opening 
negotiations  for  the  cession  of  the  Needle  give  scant  coloring  to  the  idea.  Egypt’s  warlike  ruler  was 
possibly  anxious  to  conciliate  both  the  great  Powers  in  question,  while  carrying  out  his  ambitious 
schemes  ;  but  in  neither  case  is  it  probable  that  he  was  actuated  by  any  special  feelings  of 
gratitude. 

4 

The  claims  of  the  obelisk  to  respect  and  admiration  stand  upon  a  much  firmer  and  more  en¬ 
lightened  base  than  its  prostrate  presence  near  a  battle  field  where  some  17,000  troops  were  pitted 
against  a  force  of  about  half  that  strength.  In  common  with  those  that  help  adorn  the  At  Meidan, 
Place  de  la  Concorde,  Central  Park,  and  various  piazze  in  Rome,  this  mighty  monument  of  hoary 
antiquity  is  an  enduring  tablet  whereon  the  hierologist  may  decipher  the  secrets  of  a  remote  past. 
From  the  carvings  on  its  face  we  read  of  an  age  anterior  to  most  events  recorded  in  ancient  history ; 
Troy  had  not  fallen,  Homer  was  not  born,  Solomon’s  Temple  was  not  built ;  and  Rome  arose, 
conquered  the  world,  and  passed  into  history  during  the  time  that  this  austere  chronicle  of  silent 
ages  has  braved  the  elements.  Furthermore,  in  the  words  of  Dean  Stanley :  “  It  will  speak  to  us 
of  the  wisdom  and  splendor  which  was  the  parent  of  all  past  civilization, — the  wisdom  whereby  Moses 
made  himself  learned  in  all  the  learning  of  the  Egyptians  for  the  deliverance  and  education  of  Israel — 
whence  the  earliest  Grecian  philosophers  and  the  earliest  Christian  fathers  derived  the  insight  which 
enabled  them  to  look  into  the  deep  things  alike  of  Paganism  and  Christianity.” 

Our  first  introduction  to  the  modern  history  of  the  Needle  is  the  attempt  to  remove  it  in  1801, 
when  the  battle  of  Alexandria  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  the  British  forces.  It  being  the  eager  wish 
of  the  army  and  the  fleet  to  secure  it  in  commemoration  of  their  victory,  officers  and  men  subscribed 
their  pay  to  the  amount  of  £j,ooo  ;  Lord  Cavan  entered  into  the  project  warmly,  and  Major  Bryce, 
R.  E.  (afterward  General  Sir  Alexander  Bryce),  made  the  plans  for  the  operation.  The  monolith  lay 

96 


97 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 

near  its  erect  sister  on  the  shore  of  the  bay,  just  east  of  the  peninsula  on  which  stands  the  town 
of  Alexandria.  It  was  intended  to  build  out  a  pier  into  moderately  deep  water,  and  from  it  introduce 
the  obelisk  into  a  vessel  through  the  stern.  A  sunken  French  frigate  was  raised  for  the  purpose, 
and  the  pier  was  partially  built ;  but  during  a  gale  that  arose  the  sea  washed  it  away,  and,  as  the 
army  moved  off  shortly  afterward,  the  project  had  to  be  abandoned.1 

It  appears,  however,  that  they  left  a  record  of  their  victories  there,  to  be  unearthed  many  years 
after.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  Bombay  Courier  of  June  9,  1802  2  : 

“  The  pedestal  of  the  fallen  Needle  of  Cleopatra  having  been  heeled  to  starboard,  and  a  proper  excavation 
made  in  the  centre  of  the  base  stone,  this  inscription  on  a  slab  of  marble  was  inserted,  and  the  pedestal 
restored  to  its  former  situation.  The  Needle  was  likewise  turned  over,  and  the  hieroglyphics  on  the  side  it 
had  so  long  lain  on  found  fresh  and  entire. 

“  In  the  year  of  the  Christian  era  1798,  the  Republic  of  France  landed  on  the  shores  of  Egypt  an  army 
of  40,000  men,  commanded  by  their  most  able  and  successful  commander,  General  Bonaparte.  The  conduct 
of  the  general  and  the  valor  of  the  troops  effected  the  subjection  of  that  country.  But,  under  Divine 
Providence,  it  was  reserved  for  the  British  nation  to  annihilate  their  ambitious  designs.  Their  fleet  was 
attacked,  defeated,  and  destroyed  in  Aboukir  Bay,  by  a  British  fleet  of  equal  force,  commanded  by  Admiral 
Lord  Nelson.  Their  intended  conquest  of  Syria  was  counteracted  at  Acre  by  a  most  gallant  resistance,  under 
Commodore  Sidney  Smith ;  and  Egypt  was  rescued  from  their  dominion  by  a  British  army,  inferior  in  numbers, 
but  commanded  by  General  Sir  Ralph  Abercromby,  who  landed  at  Aboukir  on  the  8th  of  March,  1801  ; 
defeated  the  French  on  several  occasions,  particularly  in  a  most  decisive  action  near  Alexandria,  on  the  21st 
of  that  month  ;  when  they  were  driven  from  the  field,  and  forced  to  shelter  themselves  in  their  garrisons  of 
Cairo  and  Alexandria,  which  places  subsequently  surrendered  by  capitulation.  To  record  to  future  ages  these 
events,  and  to  commemorate  the  loss  sustained  by  the  death  of  Sir  Ralph  Abercromby,  who  was  mortally 
wounded  at  the  moment  of  victory  on  that  memorable  day,  is  the  design  of  this  inscription,  which  was 
deposited  here  in  the  year  of  Christ  1802,  by  the  British  army,  on  their  evacuation  of  this  country  and 
restoring  it  to  the  Turkish  empire.” 

The  exact  position  of  this  pedestal  is  not  at  present  known  with  certainty,  although  it  was 
seen  and  greatly  admired  by  many  travellers  in  the  early  part  of  the  century.  It  is  presumably  a 
block  of  the  same  massive  dimensions  as  its  sister  now  in  Central  Park,  and  probably  lies  a  few 
yards  southwest  of  the  spot  from  where  the  latter  was  removed  in  1880.  During  the  progress  of 
the  excavations  made  for  the  removal  of  the  New  York  obelisk,  indications  were  found  of  the  presence 
of  large  masses  of  granite  in  that  relative  position.  Unfortunately,  the  fact  of  a  Levantine  stone¬ 
cutter’s  house,  immediately  over  it,  being  somewhat  undermined  already,  prevented  making  any  farther 
investigations  at  that  time.  It  is  likely  that  this  point  will  be  settled  before  long.  When  the  owner 
of  that  ground  carries  out  his  expressed  intention  of  building  upon  it,  the  plinth,  if  where  supposed, 
will  certainly  be  encountered  in  laying  the  foundations.  In  that  case  the  statement  in  the  Bombay 
Courier  may  be  corroborated  and  a  most  interesting  relic  secured  to  the  British  capital. 

The  first  overtures  for  the  peaceable  possession  of  the  Needle  were  made  during  the  reign  of 
George  IV,  by  Samuel  Briggs,  Esq.,  British  Consul  at  Alexandria,  as  is  shown  by  the  following 
extract  of  a  letter  written  by  him  shortly  afterward  to  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  Benjamin  Bloomfield. 

“Upper  Tooting,  Surrey,  April  n,  1820. 

“  Sir  :  Having,  on  my  late  visit  to  Egypt,  witnessed  the  stupendous  labors  of  the  celebrated  Mr. 
Belzoni,  and  received  from  him  the  assurance  that  he  could  confidently  undertake  the  removal  to  England 
of  one  of  the  granite  obelisks  at  Alexandria ;  and  the  Viceroy  of  Egypt,  Mohammed  Ali  Pacha,  having 
frequently  expressed  to  me  his  desire  of  making  some  acknowledgment  for  the  handsome  equipment  of  his 
corvette,  the  ‘Africa,’  and  for  the  presents  sent  him  by  His  Majesty  on  the  return  of  that  ship  to  Egypt 
in  the  year  1811,  I  was  encouraged  to  submit  to  His  Highness  my  opinion  that  one  of  the  obelisks  at 
Alexandria,  known  in  Europe  under  the  appellation  of  Cleopatra’s  Needles,  might  possibly  be  acceptable  to 

1  It  has  been  stated  that  lack  of  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  fleet  had  much  to  do  with  the  failure  of  this  enterprise  ; 
but  that  seems  hardly  worthy  of  credence. 

'  Appendix  to  “Cleopatra’s  Needle  and  Egyptian  Obelisks,”  by  Erasmus  Wilson,  F.R.S. 


98  Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London . 


His  Majesty,  as  unique  of  its  kind  in  England,  and  which  might,  therefore,  be  considered  a  valuable 
addition  to  the  embellishments  designed  for  the  British  metropolis.  His  Highness  promised  to  take  the 
subject  into  consideration ;  and,  since  my  return  to  England,  I  have  received  a  letter  from  his  Minister, 
authorizing  me,  if  I  deemed  it  acceptable,  to  make,  in  his  master’s  name,  a  tender  of  one  of  those  obelisks 
to  His  Majesty,  as  a  mark  of  his  personal  respect  and  gratitude.” 


The  present  was  accepted,  the  prostrate  Needle  being  specified  as  the  one  given.  But  no 
effort  was  made  to  remove  it,  and  it  appeared  to  be  forgotten  until  the  year  1832,  when  the 
propriety  of  making  an  attempt  was  discussed  in  Parliament,  and  supported  by  Joseph  Hume,  a 
sum  of  money  being  proposed  for  the  purpose.  That  fell  through,  however.  Some  thirty  years 
later  it  was  suggested  to  erect  it  in  Hyde  Park  as  a  memorial  to  Prince  Albert,  in  recognition 
of  his  efforts  to  perfect  the  success  of  the  Exhibition  held  there  in  1 85 1 .  That  also  came  to  nought. 
Finally,  the  attention  of  Lieutenant-General  Sir  James  E.  Alexander  was  drawn  to  the  matter,  and 
to  his  indefatigable  zeal  is  due  the  presence  of  the  obelisk  now  on  the  banks  of  the  Thames. 

While  in  Paris  in  1867,  that  officer,  struck  with  the  beauty  of  the  tall  shaft  in  the  Place  de  la 

Concorde,  was  reminded  that  another  obelisk,  the  property  of  the  British  nation,  lay  imbedded  in 
the  sands  at  Alexandria,  and,  furthermore,  was  informed  that  the  owner  of  the  ground  where  it  lay 
proposed  to  break  it  up  for  building  material.  Determined  to  prevent  such  vandalism  if  possible,  he 
labored  hard,  for  several  years,  to  arouse  public  interest  in  England,  and  to  obtain  the  sanction  of  the 

viceroy  for  the  removal  of  the  Needle.  In  1875  he  went  to  Egypt,  provided  with  an  introduction  from 

the  Earl  of  Derby,  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  to  General  Stanton,  H.  M.  Agent  and 
Consul-General,  and,  at  a  private  audience  with  H.  H.  the  Khedive,  obtained  the  desired  permission. 
Returning  to  England  he  was  about  to  go  into  the  city,  and,  with  the  help  of  Alderman  Cotton, 
try  and  raise  the  necessary  funds.  But  he  was  saved  this  trouble,  for,  on  explaining  the  matter  to 
his  friend,  Professor  Erasmus  Wilson,  this  gentleman,  with  a  liberality  up  to  that  time  unique, 
undertook  the  whole  matter  himself. 

It  was  now  only  a  question  of  the  mechanical  means  to  bring  it  safely  across  the  seas  and  erect 
it.  The  various  methods  proposed  from  time  to  time  are  interesting  from  their  number  and  variety, 
and  a  partial  record  of  them,  at  least,  properly  attaches  to  the  personal  history  of  the  obelisk. 

Captain  Boswell,  R.  N.,  appears  to  have  been  the  first  in  the  field,  and  plans,  supposed  to  have 
been  prepared  by  him  in  1820,  are  now  in  the  Royal  United  Service  Institution,  London.  They 
provide  for  a  large  flat-bottomed  vessel,  including  plans,  and  certain  machinery  for  raising  the 
obelisk  on  its  pedestal. 

Captain,  afterward  Admiral  Smyth,  R.  N.,  also  proposed  two  plans,  in  1822.  The  first  was  similar 
to  the  one  already  tried  in  1801,  and  Mohammed  Ali  Pacha  offered  to  assist  by  building  a  pier 
expressly  for  the  purpose ;  but  no  action  was  taken  in  the  matter.  Captain  Smyth’s  other  plan  was 
to  excavate  and  form  a  little  dry-dock  beneath  the  obelisk  ;  build  a  lighter  into  which  the  stone  could 
be  lowered  ;  then,  by  means  of  a  canal  cut  for  the  purpose,  float  it  out  into  the  bay  and  tow  it 
home. 

General  Alexander,  not  content  with  laboring  to  obtain  possession  of  the  Needle,  thought  out  two 
methods  of  getting  it  afloat  and  transporting  it.  The  first,  which  he  described  in  a  paper  read  to  the 
Royal  Society  of  Edinburgh  in  1868,  was  based  upon  the  desirability  of  avoiding  the  construction  of  a 
special  vessel.  His  words  were  as  follows  :  “  A  large  Clyde  lighter,  raised  upon,  might  transport  it 

across  the  Bay  of  Biscay  in  summer  ;  or,  if  an  old  ship,  sufficiently  seaworthy,  is  got,  and  the  masts 
taken  out  of  her,  and  the  beams  cut  across,  the  obelisk  might  be  taken  alongside,  raised,  and  lowered 
into  her,  iron  beams  being  ready,  with  bolts  and  screws,  to  connect  and  secure  the  cut  beams  of  the 
vessel,  then  towed  by  a  steamer  to  England.” 


99 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 

A  few  years  later,  however,  he  submitted  detailed  plans  which  involved  the  construction  of  a  special 
iron  vessel.  First  of  all  the  obelisk  was  to  be  turned  to  point  to  the  shore  ;  rails  would  be  laid  on 
either  side,  and  a  carriage  built  upon  them  and  over  the  Needle,  which  would  then  be  suspended  from 
it.  To  effect  this,  cross-rods  would  be  inserted  beneath  the  stone  and  connected  with  hanging-rods 
from  the  top  traverses  of  the  carriage  ;  by  digging  away  the  earth  the  weight  of  the  monolith  would  be 
taken  by  the  carriage.  The  vessel  was  to  be  put  together  on  launching  ways,  the  rails  continued  in 
through  the  bows,  the  carriage  rolled  on  board,  the  bows  closed  again,  and  the  vessel  launched. 

In  1872  there  was  a  way  suggested  that  was  not  devoid  of  novelty.  It  was  proposed  to  make  the 
surface  of  the  obelisk  cylindrical  by  a  filling-up  of  wood  ;  it  could  then  be  rolled  down  into  the  water, 
suspended  from  heavy  balks  crossing  the  decks  of  two  steamers  lashed  alongside  of  each  other,  and  be 
carried  off  to  England.  The  stone  being  slung  in  the  water  would  be  diminished  in  weight  by  nearly 
one  half,  so  each  vessel  would  have  a  large  margin  of  carrying  capacity  for  cargo. 

The  year  1873  was  quite  fruitful  of  ideas.  The  first  in  chronological  order  was  that  of  Mr.  J.  L. 
Haddan,  Director  of  Public  Works,  Aleppo,  Syria,  who  suggested  building  up  round  the  obelisk  a  solid, 
or  partially  solid,  cylindrical  casing  of  wood  of  such  diameter  that  the  timber  thus  applied  would  float  the 
mass.  Its  cylindrical  shape  would  make  it  an  easy  matter  to  roll  it  into  the  bay,  whence  it  could  be 
towed  to  the  Thames.  Hoisted  then  intact,  packing  and  all,  on  to  the  embankment,  either  by  the 
risings  of  several  tides  or  by  hydraulic  jacks,  it  could  be  rolled  to  its  site.  Understanding  that  the 
weight  of  the  obelisk  was  284  tons,  and  taking  into  consideration  the  weight  of  bolts,  bands,  etc.,  Mr. 
Haddan  estimated  that  about  320  tons  of  wood  would  be  required,  the  diameter  of  the  cylinder  being 
about  20  feet  and  the  length  72  feet. 

The  idea  of  incasing  the  obelisk  in  a  sufficient  quantity  of  wood  to  float  it  was  also  advanced 
later  by  a  gentleman  in  Alexandria,  who,  undismayed  by  one  failure,  revived  the  plan  in  1879,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  New  York  obelisk, — with  equal  success. 

In  the  same  year  as  the  preceding,  Mr.  W.  A.  Wharton,  of  the  Bestwood  Park  works,  near 
Nottingham,  advocated  building  a  strong  timber  carriage  round  the  stone,,  to  run  on  iron  rails. 
This  could  easily  be  moved  forward  at  the  rate  of  a  mile  a  day  to  the  shore,  when  it  would  be 
run  out  as  far  as  possible  at  low  tide,  the  trucks,  etc.,  taken  off,  timber  of  tramway  loaded  in 
the  intermediate  spaces,  and  the  whole  thing  allowed  to  float,  being  made  into  a  temporary  boat 
in  a  few  hours.  Mr.  Wharton  was  apparently  unaware  that  the  obelisk  lay  only  a  few  yards  from 
the  water,  and  that  there  is  no  tide  at  Alexandria. 

The  following  was  proposed  by  a  gentleman  who  prefaced  his  remarks  by  saying  that  he  did  not 
know  the  relative  position  of  the  Needle  with  regard  to  the  water.  The  plan  provided  for  a 
launching  ways  and  cradle,  built  of  wood  and  iron,  by  which  the  obelisk  could  be  moved  to  the 
water’s  edge,  capstans,  screw-jacks,  and  small  engines  being  used  to  effect  the  locomotion.  Being 
at  the  water’s  edge,  it  was  to  be  raised  by  hydraulic  pumps,  and  an  iron  ship  put  together  round  it, 
such  ship  being  built  in  England  and  sent  out  in  pieces.  The  launch  would  be  effected  in  the  usual 
way  and  the  vessel  towed  to  England.  The  plan  of  disembarking  was  somewhat  complicated.  A  dry- 
dock  was  to  be  built  in  the  embankment,  fifty  feet  longer  than  the  vessel,  the  depth  being  thirty  feet  from 
the  surface  of  the  ground ;  the  vessel,  being  hauled  in  stern  first,  would  be  cut  apart,  and  the  forward 
end  drawn  away,  closed  with  a  bulkhead,  and  floated  out.  The  stern  would  then  be  cut  off  also  so  as 
to  permit  hydraulic  jacks  to  get  a  bearing  under  the  Needle,  which  would  then  be  raised  sufficiently  to 
allow  the  middle  section  of  the  vessel  to  be  drawn  forward  ;  that  middle  section  would  be  again  joined 
to  the  stern,  the  other  open  end  closed  by  a  bulkhead,  and  the  whole  floated  out  of  the  dock.  The 
entire  vessel  could  afterward  be  put  together  and  sold  for  commercial  purposes.  The  obelisk  was 
then  to  be  raised  by  the  hydraulic  jacks  until  above  ground,  the  dock  being  built  up  after  it.  It 
would  then  be  erected  and  afterward  lifted  vertically  by  the  jacks,  one  under  each  corner,  until  at 
the  proper  height  for  the  pedestal. 


ioo  Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 

In  1876,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Henry  Lenox,  First  Commissioner  of  Works,  Mr.  Arthur  Arnold 
suggested  the  possibility  of  shipping  the  Needle  by  constructing  a  railway  on  piles  to  such  a  distance 
from  the  shore  as  would  admit  the  approach  of  a  vessel  capable  of  carrying  it  to  England  ;  sus¬ 
pended  in  slings  from  running  gear  it  would  be  moved  out  until  it  hung  over  the  intended 
position  on  board. 

In  the  same  letter  Mr.  Arnold  recommended  the  adoption  of  another  method,  for  which  he  gives 
credit  mainly  to  Captain  Methven,  of  the  Peninsula  and  Oriental  Company.  After  excavating  round 
it  the  obelisk  was  to  be  strung  from  girders  resting  on  the  ground,  and  an  iron  vessel  about  120  feet 
long  and  6  feet  draught  put  together  in  the  space  excavated  beneath.  A  channel  to  deep  water 
would  be  dredged  or  blasted,  and  when  the  vessel  was  ready  the  sea  would  be  admitted  and  would 
raise  it  to  its  burden.  The  barge  would  be  decked,  given  as  much  free-board  as  necessary,  and  towed 
to  England. 

On  the  subject  of  the  transportation  of  the  Needle  being  publicly  broached,  Messrs.  King,  Scotch¬ 
men,  offered  to  perform  the  task.  Their  plan,  and  a  most  excellent  one  it  was,  avoided  the  construction 
of  a  special  vessel,  their  idea  being  to  bring  the  Needle  home  in  a  steam  hopper-barge,  such  as  are 
used  for  dredging.  The  obelisk  would  first  be  launched  down  a  timber  ways  into  the  water,  and  then 
lifted  up  through  the  bottom  of  the  hopper-barge.  These  vessels  are  large  flat-bottomed  screw  steamers, 
having  water-tight  compartments  running  all  round  the  hull  ;  the  large  space  in  the  middle  for  carrying 
the  mud  is  furnished  with  a  false  bottom,  in  the  form  of  trap-doors  which  open  downward  into  the 
sea.  One  of  these  could  easily  have  steamed  to  England,  possibly  under  convoy. 

Mr.  John  Walker,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Ramleh  Railroad,  in  Alexandria,  held  that  the  best  way 
was  to  haul  the  obelisk  through  the  streets  of  Alexandria  to  the  port,  and  put  it  on  the  deck  of  a 
well-laden  ship. 

Such  are  the  broad  features  of  most  of  the  plans  suggested  to  remove  the  obelisk.  While  in 
Egypt,  however,  Sir  James  Alexander  had  become  acquainted  with  Mr.  John  Dixon,  who  had  paid 
considerable  attention  to  the  subject  of  the  monolith  and  its  proposed  transportation,  and  had  brought 
his  skill  and  experience  as  a  civil  engineer  to  bear  on  the  practical  points  involved.  Returning  to 
England,  Mr.  Dixon  had  an  interview  with  Professor  Wilson,  and  not  long  afterward  an  agreement 
was  entered  into  by  them  ;  Mr.  Dixon,  taking  all  risks,  engaged  to  set  up  the  obelisk  on  the  banks 
of  the  Thames,  and  Mr.  Wilson  agreed  to  pay  the  sum  of  ,£10,000  on  its  erection.  The  contract 
was  signed  on  January  30,  1877  ;  and  both  performed  their  part. 

The  London  obelisk  is  the  first  large  one  that  was  ever  transported  or  erected  under  private 
auspices ;  all  the  more  credit  is  therefore  due  to  Professor  Wilson,  not  only  for  securing  the  monument 
to  his  country,  but  for  setting  an  example  of  liberality  that  has  since  been  so  generously  followed  in 
the  United  States.  To  Mr.  Dixon,  also,  must  be  conceded  the  honor  of  being  the  first  to  assume 
the  financial  risks  attendant  upon  such  an  undertaking ;  more  is  the  pity  that  his  enterprise,  through 
unforeseen  disaster,  resulted  in  serious  pecuniary  loss. 

The  London  obelisk  was  also  the  first  one  handled  after  the  beginning  of  the  great  forward  stride 
in  the  mechanical  arts  that  has  so  distinguished  this  nineteenth  century.  All  the  phases  of  the  various 
operations  bore  the  impress  of  increased  facilities  in  the  utilization  of  iron  and  mechanical  tools,  and  in 
the  employment  of  steam  and  hydraulic  power. 

The  main  special  difficulty  in  the  removal  of  this  particular  obelisk  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  bay,  on 
the  shore  of  which  it  was  lying,  was  encumbered  with  shoals  and  exposed  to  gales.  In  consequence 
of  this  no  ordinary  sea-going  vessel  could  lie  there  in  safety,  much  less  if  brought  near  enough  to  the 
shore  to  take  the  obelisk  directly  on  board.  Therefore,  either  a  special  vessel  had  to  be  built  which 
could  be  handled  on  the  shore  and  then  launched  and  towed  away,  or  the  obelisk  would  have  to  be 
carried  to  the  harbor  and  there  embarked  in  a  suitable  vessel. 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 


IOI 


Mr.  Dixon  elected  in  favor  of  the  former  method.  His  general  plan  of  operations  was  to  construct 
an  iron  cylinder  of  adequate  size  in  England,  ship  it  to  Egypt  in  pieces,  put  it  together  round  the 
monolith,  roll  it  into  the  sea,  and  tow  it  to  London. 

The  design  of  a  vessel  is  generally  made  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  service  on  which  she 
will  be  employed  at  sea.  In  this  particular  case,  however,  the  builders  had  the  novel  experience  of 
constructing  a  seaworthy  craft  in  which  every  thing  had  to  be  subordinated  to  the  one  prime  feature 
that  would  enable  her  to  be  launched  by  rolling  down  the  beach.  That  is  to  say,  the  vessel  had 
to  be  perfectly  cylindrical ;  stability  and  other  desirable  qualities  had  to  be  obtained  mostly  by  internal 
arrangements.  Were  the  axis  of  the  Needle  to  coincide  with  the  axis  of  the  cylinder,  it  is  evident 
that  when  once  started  rolling  in  the  water,  it  would  keep  on  almost  indefinitely,  retarded  and 

finally  stopped  only  by  the  skin  resistance.  By  bringing  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  Needle  below 

that  axis,  the  vessel  would  be  in  a  state  of  stable  equilibrium  ;  that  is  to  say,  however  much  the 
wind  and  sea  might  careen  it  over,  the  action  of  gravity  would  bring  it  back  to  the  vertical;  and  this 
would  obtain  until  the  vessel  were  actually  upside  down.  The  lower  the  weight,  the  greater  the  righting 
force,  and  therefore  the  greater  stability,  but  also  the  more  violent  rolling  motion.  It  was  decided  to 
place  the  centre  of  gravity  of  all  weights  about  nine  or  ten  inches  below  the  axis  of  the  cylinder, 
or,  in  the  phraseology  of  a  naval  architect,  to  give  the  vessel  a  meta-centric  height  of  that  number 
of  inches.  The  bed  for  the  obelisk,  however,  was  placed  only  four  inches  below  the  centre  of 
gravity  of  the  cylinder,  it  being  the  intention  to  have  sufficient  ballast  in  the  bottom  to  lower  the 
centre  of  gravity  the  remaining  five  or  six  inches. 

In  order  to  ease  the  pitching  motion  as  much  as  possible,  the  bed  of  the  obelisk  was  also 

prepared  so  that  it  would  lie  with  the  thick  end  forward.  The  centre  of  gravity  of  the  Needle  being 

at  about  one  third  its  height  from  the  base,  and  being  naturally  placed  in  the  centre  of  the  vessel 
(in  regard  to  its  length),  the  upper  or  longer  end  would  extend  farther  from  that  centre,  or  nearer 
to  the  end  of  the  vessel,  than  would  the  larger  and  shorter  end;  therefore  putting  the  latter  forward 
would  throw  less  weight  into  the  bows  than  the  small  end  would  bring.  The  lines  of  the  bow 
were  also  made  as  full  as  was  consistent  with  a  reasonable  expenditure  of  power  in  towing. 

Such  was  the  vessel  designed  by  Mr.  Dixon,  with  the  help  of  Mr.  B.  Baker,  to  whom  he 
gives  credit  for  much  assistance.  Her  construction  was  entrusted  to  the  Thames  Iron  Works 
Company.  The  length  of  the  “  Cleopatra,”  as  she  was  subsequently  christened,  was  ninety-three 
feet,  diameter  fifteen  feet  ;  she  was  divided  into  ten  compartments  by  nine  water-tight  bulkheads, 
with  two  intermediate  reverse  angle-iron  frames  in  each  compartment,  carried  right  round  to  ensure 
the  stiffness  of  the  plates.  To  prevent  all  possibility  of  rupture  of  the  Needle  in  consequence  of 
any  deflection  in  the  length  of  the  vessel,  caused  by  the  waves  or  by  rolling  down  to  the  water, 
elastic  timber  cushions  were  provided  at  all  the  bearings,  which  would  allow  a  possible  deflection  of 
four  inches  before  bringing  any  undue  strain  on  the  stone.  This  was  greatly  in  excess  of  any 
probable  contingency,  for  the  calculations  showed  that  the  strength  of  the  hull  was  such  that  the 
maximum  strain  that  could  be  experienced  at  sea  would  cause  a  change  of  form  of  less  than  one 
eighth  of  an  inch. 

Captain  Henry  Carter,  of  the  Peninsula  and  Oriental  Company,  was  selected  to  command  the 
“  Cleopatra.”  He  remained  in  England  to  inspect  the  vessel  when  completed,  and  then  proceeded 
to  Alexandria  to  assist  Mr.  Waynman  Dixon  in  the  preliminary  operations. 

The  total  length  of  the  London  obelisk  is  sixty-eight  feet  five  and  one  half  inches,  including  the 

pyramidion  which  is  seven  feet  six  inches  high 1  ;  the  width  at  the  base  is  seven  feet  ten  and  one  half 

inches  and  seven  feet  five  inches,  on  adjoining  sides,  tapering  to  five  feet  one  inch  and  four  feet  ten 

inches  at  the  base  of  the  pyramidion.2  Assuming  it  to  be  a  perfect  block  these  dimensions  give  a  cubic 

1  The  pyramidion  is  imperfect  ;  the  point  is  broken  off. 


3  Erasmus  Wilson. 


102 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  A lexandria  to  London. 

measurement  of  2,5iy  feet;  and  the  specific  gravity  of  the  stone  being  2.66,  the  weight  of  the  monolith 
is  found  to  be  very  nearly  186*^  tons,  neglecting  loss  from  hieroglyphs  and  the  marring  of  the  heel  and 
edges.  That  marring  of  the  heel,  to  the  extent  of  breaking  off  large  masses  at  the  corners,  cannot  be 
attributed  to  the  present  age.  The  fractures  are  also  too  irregular  to  admit  the  theory  that  they  were 
purposely  broken  off  to  facilitate  the  operation  of  raising  the  Needle.  It  seems  probable  that  in  the 
Middle  Ages  the  obelisk  was  erect,  and,  like  its  fellow,  now  in  New  York,  sustained  by  bronze  crabs.1 
To  get  at  these  the  lower  corners  may  have  been  broken  off  and  the  shaft  itself  felled.  But  this  is 
a  matter  of  conjecture.  Not  so,  though,  with  the  marring  of  the  edges.  The  hammer  of  the  con¬ 
scienceless  relic-hunter  is  answerable  for  most  of  that.  A  writer  in  All  the  Year  Round ,  October,  1859, 
relates  the  evidence  of  his  own  eyes,  as  follows  :  “  The  last  time  the  writer  saw  it  (not  very  long 

ago),  a  Briton  was  sitting  upon  it,  knocking  off  enough  of  the  inscribed  stone  for  himself  and  fellow- 
travellers  with  a  hammer.  The  writer  expostulated  with  his  brother  Briton,  and  reminded  him  that 
that  wonderful  relic  of  bygone  days  did  not  belong  to  him,  but  had  been  handsomely  presented  to 
the  British  nation,  and  therefore  belonged  to  it.  ‘Well,  I  know  it  does,’  he  answered,  ‘and  as  one 
of  the  British  nation  I  mean  to  have  my  share.’  ”  It  is  well  known  that  that  is  but  a  case  in  point. 

When  Captain  Carter  and  Mr.  Waynman  Dixon  wished  to  commence  excavating  round  the  Needle, 
they  were  much  delayed  and  annoyed  by  the  owner  of  the  ground,  who  had  made  a,  claim  against  the 
Egyptian  government  for  allowing  the  obelisk  to  encumber  his  property  for  so  long.  Great  perseverance 
and  tact  were  necessary  to  smooth  matters  with  this  person,  but  an  amicable  settlement  was  finally 
reached,  and  the  work  was  begun  early  in  June. 

As  soon  as  the  obelisk  was  disclosed  to  view  stout  balks  of  timber  were  introduced  under  it,  and, 
with  the  help  of  hydraulic  jacks,  the  smaller  end  was  moved  round  so  as  to  bring  it  parallel  to  the 
sea.  It  had  been  carried  along  about  thirty  feet  when  the  earth  appeared  to  be  yielding  under  the 
weight,  and,  on  examination,  the  crown  of  a  vault  was  discovered  about  six  feet  long  by  three  wide 
and  four  high.  Several  small  jars  were  found  in  there,  and  two  human  skulls  in  a  perfect  state 
of  preservation,  also  several  arm  and  leg  bones.  The  skulls  were  eventually  put  on  board  the 
“  Cleopatra,”  but  as  they  were  never  seen  after  the  gale  in  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  it  is  supposed  that  the 
superstitious  Maltese  crew  threw  them  overboard  to  save  the  ship.  Several  larger  vases  were  also 
found,  hermetically  sealed,  which  on  being  opened  proved  to  contain  only  a  little  dust.  Rich 
archaeological  treasures  would  undoubtedly  be  unearthed  by  excavations  in  this  immediate  vicinity ; 
but  unfortunately  a  large  five-story  dwelling  now  covers  the  exact  spot,  and  future  examinations  will 
probably  be  delayed  many  years,  at  least  until  the  gradual  subsidence  of  the  shore  shall  cause  the 
abandonment  and  final  destruction  of  that  building. 

The  materials  of  the  cylinder  soon  arrived,  and  the  diaphragms  were  put  in  place  round  the  obelisk, 
being  packed  so  as  to  be  water-tight,  and  separated  from  the  stone  by  the  elastic  cushions  previously 
mentioned.  As  soon  as  a  few  of  the  middle  bulkheads  were  on,  the  plates  of  the  iron  shell  were 
riveted  to  them  and  to  each  other,  and  bit  by  bit  the  entire  casing  was  built  up. 

While  this  work  was  going  on,  under  the  superintendence  of  Mr.  Waynman  Dixon,  the  sea-wall 
was  demolished  and  the  land  graded.  Divers  were  also  employed  by  Captain  Carter  to  remove  the 
numerous  blocks  of  stone  lying  in  the  water  near  by  ;  many  of  these  were  covered  with  hieroglyphics, 
and,  could  their  early  history  be  traced,  might  add  to  our  knowledge  of  the  glories  of  those  ancient 
monarchs.  Farther  out  the  remains  of  an  immense  wall  were  encountered,  composed  of  blocks 
weighing  over  twenty  tons.  Dynamite  had  to  be  used  to  blast  them,  as  it  was  necessary  to  carry 
the  grade  out  to  a  depth  of  nine  or  ten  feet.  A  great  number  of  stones  were  thus  removed,  but 
it  was  foreseen  that  there  were  probably  others  barely  below  the  muddy  surface  which  could  not 
be  seen,  but  which  would  assert  themselves  as  the  weight  of  the  vessel  came  upon  them.  To 


1  See  chap,  vi,  “  London  Obelisk.” 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 


103 


guard  against  danger  in  this  quarter,  two  rings  of  nine-inch  timber  were  strapped  round  the  cylinder, 
near  the  ends,  constituting  in  effect  two  wheels  sixteen  and  a  half  feet  in  diameter  and  twelve  feet 
in  the  tread,  on  which  the  vessel  would  roll.  Planking  was  also  laid  as  far  as  the  water’s  edge. 

One  other  precaution  had  to  be  taken  before  the  launch.  The  stone  being  four  inches  below 
the  centre  of  the  cylinder,  the  motion  in  rolling  would  be  hard  to  control,  for  as  soon  as  the 

heavy  part  got  over  the  perpendicular,  it  would  give  a  great  lurch  forward.  This  eccentricity  was 
counterbalanced  by  packing  a  quantity  of  old  iron  rails  in  a  recess  that  had  been  made  for  the 
purpose  in  the  round  skin  where  the  cabin  was  afterward  to  be  built. 

The  last  stage  of  the  preparations  was  reached  when  the  ropes  were  arranged  to  start  the 

cylinder.  Wire  hawsers  were  used.  They  were  passed  from  seaward  over  the  top  and  nine  times 

round  the  vessel,  so  that  on  applying  power  to  them  they  would  cause  her  to  roll  down  the  incline  ; 

the  hauling  ends  were  taken  to  winches  on  board  heavy  lighters  moored  some  distance  out ;  other 
hawsers  were  also  provided  on  the  land  side  to  check  the  movement  when  desired. 

The  28th  of  August,  1 877,  was  the  day  fixed  for  the  launch.  It  began  rather  inauspiciously  with 
a  thick  fog,  something  rather  unusual  at  that  time  of  year ;  but  as  the  day  wore  on  it  cleared 
away.  By  six  in  the  morning  the  slack  ot  the  wire  hawsers  had  been  taken  in  on  board  the  lighters, 
and  four  powerful  screw-jacks  were  placed  against  the  cylinder.  Two  steam-tugs  were  also  ready  to 
lend  assistance,  one  belonging  to  the  Egyptian  government,  and  one  to  Messrs.  Greenfield  &  Co. 

Several  thousands  of  the  mixed  population  of  Alexandria  were  on  hand  at  an  early  hour,  crowding 
every  spot  from  which  a  view  of  the  operations  was  obtainable  ;  and  during  the  day  many  locally 

distinguished  personages  came  and  watched  the  proceedings. 

When  all  was  ready  the  winches  were  hove  round,  and  the  screw-jacks  plied,  and  in  a  few 
minutes  the  ponderous  vessel  began  to  roll  toward  the  sea,  but  so  slowly  that  the  movement  was 

barely  perceptible.  By  noon  the  cylinder  had  only  made  one  revolution,  equal  to  about  fifty  feet. 

The  work  went  on  uninterruptedly  in  spite  of  the  heat,  90°  in  the  shade  not  being  sufficient  to  dim 

the  interest  of  even  the  spectators.  Working  the  hawsers  from  the  lighters  had  to  be  given  up, 

however,  because  the  holding  ground  was  so  poor  that  their  anchors  dragged  under  the  strain.  So 
the  ropes  were  taken  to  the  tugs,  which,  steaming  ahead  at  full  power,  could  just  keep  the  cylinder 
moving.  By  half  past  five  it  had  reached  the  water’s  edge,  where  the  planking  ended  and  a  com¬ 
paratively  steep  incline  commenced,  and  there  it  made  an  attempt  to  run  off  to'  sea,  but  was  checked 
at  twelve  feet.  After  this  the  progress  was  as  gradual  as  before,  and  the  screw-jacks  had  to  be 
kept  in  constant  operation.  Just  before  seven  she  took  another  start,  and  made  a  sudden  half-turn, 
bringing  up  in  three  feet  of  water,  where  she  was  left  for  the  night. 

It  was  not  a  bad  day’s  work,  on  the  whole,  although,  of  course,  some  disappointment  was  felt 
that  the  obelisk  had  not  been  got  afloat.  It  seems  to  be  a  peculiarity,  however,  of  operations  with 
obelisks,  that  unforeseen  hitches  will  occur  and  cause  delay. 

Soon  after  daylight  on  the  29th  the  screw-jacks  were  manned  again  and  the  tugs  began  towing 
away.  Not  much  was  gained  until  about  noon,  when  the  cylinder  took  a  fine  roll  and  got  out  so 

far  that  it  was  thought  to  be  afloat.  This  proved  not  to  be  the  case,  however,  and  all  the  rest  of 

the  day  the  tugs  were  kept  at  work  with  but  little  effect.  The  next  morning  the  remarkable  discovery 
was  made  that  the  vessel  was  apparently  half  full  of  water.  What  made  this  all  the  more  awkward 
was,  that  what  was  properly  the  upper  half  was  under  water,  and  it  was  impossible  to  open  the  man¬ 
hole  doors  to  examine  into  the  hause  of  the  leak.  Arab  divers  were  employed  but  failed  to  discover 
what  was  the  matter.  A  hole  was  then  cut  in  the  surface  above  water,  and  a  fifteen-inch  double¬ 
suction  pump  set  to  work  ;  but  that  did  not  seem  to  affect  the  level  of  the  water  inside.  A  regular 
diver  in  proper  diving-dress  was  then  sent  down,  and  he  reported  that  a  large  stone,  hidden  in  the 
sand,  had  penetrated  the  bottom  forward  of  the  end  bulkhead. 


104  Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 

When  a  large  vessel  founders  after  a  collision,  one  of  the  first  questions  asked  by  the  court  of 
inquiry  is:  “Were  the  bulkhead-doors  shut?”  Mr.  Dixon,  in  alluding  to  this  phase  of  the  operations, 
in  a  lecture  delivered  before  the  Royal  United  Service  Institution,  London,  said:  “Now  I  shall  never 
be  hard,  and  never  be  severe,  on  any  naval  captains,  or  any  one  else  after  what  occurred.  There 
were  six  or  seven  of  us  with  every  inducement  to  pay  every  attention  to  that  vessel.  There  was 
Mr.  Waynman  Dixon  in  actual  charge  of  the  operations,  the  others  looking  on.  We  had  provided 
bulkheads,  we  had  provided  water-tight  doors  through  them,  and  we  had  so  carefully  managed  that 
the  man  whose  duty  it  was  to  close  those  doors  had  forgotten  to  do  so,  and  all  were  left  open !  ” 

The  whole  vessel  had  filled,  therefore,  as  soon  as  the  hole  was  made  in  that  end  compartment. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  remove  the  stone,  which  took  days,  for  it  proved  to  be  a 

rock  weighing  over  half  a  ton.  The  cylinder  was  then  rolled  over  to  seaward  to  bring  the  injured 

plate  out  of  water.  On  the  5th  of  September  the  hole  appeared  above  the  water’s  edge  and  was 
‘found  to  measure  eighteen  inches  across.  A  patch  was  riveted  on,  and  the  next  day  passed  in  pumping 
the  vessel  dry.  On  the  7th  the  tugs  were  recalled,  and  by  eleven  that  morning  the  cylinder  was 
observed  to  rise  and  fall  with  the  swell,  showing  unmistakably  that  it  was  afloat.  The  wooden  casing 
was  immediately  stripped  off,  the  counterbalancing  weight  of  rails  removed  from  the  top,  and,  amid 
cheers  from  the  shore,  the  novel  craft  was  towed  out  of  the  bay  and  round  to  the  harbor.  With 
child-like  confidence  a  number  of  Arabs  and  Maltese  had  perched  themselves  upon  her  arched  back, 
with  nothing  to  save  them  in  case  of  her  rolling.  Owing  to  her  shape,  however,  the  amphibious 
fabric  moved  along,  as  steady  as  a  church,  while  the  tugs  ahead  were  rolling  sponsons  under. 

After  this  not  much  remained  to  be  done.  The  cylinder  was  put  on  the  magnificent  floating  dock 
belonging  to  the  Egyptian  government,  and  bilge-keels  riveted  on,  some  forty  feet  in  length.  The  cabin 
and  bridge  were  also  fitted,  the  mast  stepped,  the  rudder  hung,  and  all  preparations  made  for  sea, 
including  the  stowage  of  twenty  tons  of  iron  ballast.  In  doing  the  last  the  overseers  were  so  negligent 
as  not  to  have  the  rails  properly  secured,  and  this  neglect  nearly  led  to  the  loss  of  the  vessel  afterward. 
When  all  ready  for  sea  the  total  displacement  was  290  tons. 

Christened  on  the  19th,  by  the  daughter  of  Admiral  MacKillop  Pacha,  the  “Cleopatra”  weighed 
anchor  on  the  21st  of  September,  and  moved  out  of  the  harbor  in  tow  of  the  steamer  “  Olga.” 
Stoppages  were  made  at  Algiers  and  Gibraltar,  and  early  in  the  morning  of  October  10th,  Cape 
St.  Vincent  was  rounded  under  pleasant  auspices.  Indications  of  bad  weather  soon  came  on,  though, 
and  on  the  morning  of  the  14th  a  heavy  gale  broke  on  the  vessels  from  south-southwest.  The 
“  Cleopatra,”  which  did  not  steer  very  well  at  any  time,  yawed  considerably,  and  occasionally  tremendous 
seas  would  strike  the  cabin,  threatening  to  wash  it  overboard  bodily.  Captain  Carter  decided  to  bring 
the  vessel  head  to  wind  before  dark,  and  ride  to  a  sea  anchor.  A  signal  was  made  to  the  “  Olga  ”  to 
cast  off,  but  before  this  could  be  done  a  tremendous  sea  broke  on  board,  causing  such  a  lurch  that  the 
ballast  shifted  to  leeward  and  the  vessel  went  over  on  her  “beam  ends.”  All  attempts  to  secure  the 
ballast  proving  unsuccessful,  it  was  decided  to  abandon  the  vessel.  The  little  life-boat  was  cleared  away 
and  lowered,  but  was  immediately  dashed  to  pieces  under  the  yoke  of  the  rudder.  In  the  meantime, 
Captain  Booth,  of  the  “  Olga,”  surmising  what  had  happened,  called  for  volunteers  to  go  on  board 
the  “Cleopatra”  and  help  secure  the  ballast.  Six  noble-hearted  sailors  responded,  and  manned  their 
boat ;  they  got  safely  away  from  their  own  ship,  but  on  nearing  the  “  Cleopatra,”  a  sea  swept  over 
them  and  launched  them  into  eternity. 

The  “Olga”  finally  managed  to  throw  a  line  over  the  “Cleopatra,”  by  which  a  boat  was  hauled 
alongside,  and  Captain  Carter  and  his  crew  reached  the  steamer  in  safety.  Captain  Booth  immediately 
cast  off  his  tow,  and  went  in  search  of  the  boat  and  crew  that  had  been  swamped,  but  found  no 
trace  of  them.  Neither  could  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  be  found  again  afterward.  Concluding  somewhat 
hastily  that  she  had  foundered,  the  “  Olga’s  ”  head  was  laid  northward,  and  they  reached  Falmouth 


THE  ENGLISH  METHOD  OF  ERECTING  THE  LONDON  ODELISK. 


cSecft’imaT  T/rtn  through  hearing  shoring  m’/ig. 


y 

I 

I 

s? 


.1 

£ 

•1 

1 

£ 


t,  ° 

- Clo  0 

\ o 

1_ s. 

— LJp  1 

IV 

Plate  XXXV. 


. 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London.  105 

on  the  17th.  Had  Captain  Booth  remained  in  the  neighborhood,  possibly  a  little  to  windward  for 
safety  during  the  night,  he  might  have  picked  up  his  consort  again.  As  it  was,  the  “  Fitzmaurice  ” 
espied  the  prize  seventy  miles  from  Ferrol,  towed  it  into  that  port,  and  sent  in  a  claim  for  salvage 
to  the  amount  of  ^5,ooo.  When  the  case  was  tried  in  the  Admiralty  Court,  however,  the  sum  of 
£2,000  was  adjudged, — 1,200  to  the  owners,  25o  to  the  master,  and  the  rest  to  the  crew.1 

The  “  Cleopatra  ”  remained  about  three  months  in  the  harbor  of  Ferrol,  finally  reaching  the  Thames 
on  January  20,  1878,  in  tow  of  the  “Anglia”  tug.  Mr.  James  Lloyd  Ashley,  M.  P.,  had  made  a  generous 
offer  of  his  steam-yacht,  the  “  Eothen,”  for  the  purpose,  but  this  was  declined. 

By  this  time  it  had  been  decided  where  to  erect  the  Needle,  though  the  discussion  had  been 
warm,  the  “  Battle  of  the  Sites  ”  having  been  obstinately  fought  in  many  papers.  The  centre  of 
two  acres  of  ornamental  ground  on  the  Thames  embankment  had  been  originally  granted  to  General 
Alexander  in  1872,  but  that  was  very  generally  objected  to  on  the  score  that  the  monument  would 
not  be  sufficiently  detached  from  the  rear  of  the  houses  in  the  Strand.  Among  the  situations 
proposed  may  be  mentioned  the  following :  St.  James’  Park,  near  the  marginal  railing  dividing  it 
from  the  parade  in  rear  of  the  Horse  Guards ;  the  esplanade  of  the  Horse  Guards,  between  the 
western  fagade  of  that  gateway  and  the  boundary  of  St.  James’  Park  ;  the  four  poplars  in  the  Green 
Park ;  the  front  of  the  British  Museum  ;  Regent’s  Circus  at  the  top  of  Portland  Place ;  Quadrangle 
Square,  Greenwich  Hospital.  Mr.  Dixon’s  favorite  site  was  near  Westminster  Abbey,  in  the  centre  of 
the  garden  plot,  where  there  are  the  statues  of  the  Earl  of  Derby  and  Lord  Palmerston  ;  he  even 
went  to  the  length  of  trying  the  effect  by  putting  up  a  wooden  model  there.  This  position  would 
perhaps  have  been  chosen  but  for  the  fact  that  it  was  over  the  Metropolitan  Underground  Railway, 
and  the  directors  of  that  company  said  that  if  it  were  placed  there,  even  though  secured  by  iron 
girders,  they  would  require  a  perpetual  indemnity  against  the  risk  of  its  breaking  through  into  the 
tunnel.  « 

The  obelisk,  being  national  property,  came  at  first  under  cognizance  of  Her  Majesty’s  Office  of 
Works,  but  before  long  was  turned  over  to  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  which  body  finally 
decided  upon  the  Adelphi  steps,  on  the  Victoria  Embankment  of  the  Thames,  between  Charing  Cross 
and  Waterloo  bridges.  Whatever  the  objections  to  this  site  in  regard  to  the  fitness  of  its  surroundings, 
none  can  apparently  be  urged  on  engineering  grounds.  A  very  broad  and  thick  concrete  base  was 
provided,  resting  on  the  stiff  clay  which  underlies  the  mud  of  the  river  bank,  and  the  arched  vaults 
of  the  embankment  were  filled  in  solid  with  cement  concrete.  It  is  not  thought  probable  that  the 
weight  of  the  monolith  will  affect  the  embankment. 

The  selection  of  this  site  naturally  facilitated  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Dixon’s  work,  as  the  “  Cleopatra,” 
with  her  burden,  could  come  right  alongside,  and  the  Needle  had  only  to  be  lifted  out  and  erected 
without  any  farther  journeying.  So  the  vessel  was  brought  up  from  the  East  India  docks,  and  grounded 
at  high  tide  on  a  sunken  timber  cradle.  After  cutting  the  cabin  away,  the  cylinder  was  turned  one 
quarter  round,  to  bring  the  best  face  of  the  obelisk  toward  the  roadway.  The  iron  ship  was  then 
taken  to  pieces,  and  the  obelisk  raised  by  hydraulic  jacks,  and  slid  on  to  the  embankment  by  screw 
traversers,  until  its  centre  of  gravity  came  exactly  over  the  centre  of  the  proposed  site. 

This  done,  work  was  commenced  on  the  apparatus  for  erecting  the  Needle.  (See  Plate  xxxv). 
First  of  all,  four  immense  uprights  were  fashioned,  each  formed  of  six  heavy  balks  of  timber  over  sixty 
feet  high  and  a  foot  square,  strengthened  and  braced  together  by  tie-beams,  and  supported  in  their 
vertical  position  by  struts  thrown  out  on  all  sides.  These  uprights  were  to  do  duty  as  guide-rods  for 
the  carriage,  so  to  speak,  on  which  the  obelisk  would  be  borne  aloft  and  held  while  turning.  This 
carriage  consisted  of  two  horizontal  box-girders,  one  on  either  side  of  the  stone,  supported  on  wooden 

1  There  is  some  uncertainty  on  this  point.  Some  reports  state  that  the  claim  was  for  ^10,000,  and  that  the  award  was 
£7,000 — h.  H.  G. 


io 6  Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London . 


blocking  fitted  in  between  the  balks  composing  the  uprights.  A  wrought-iron  jacket,  twenty  feet  long, 
was  riveted  round  the  Needle,  from  which  projected  on  opposite  sides,  at  the  centre  of  gravity,  two 
knife-edge  pivots,  which  should  rest  on  the  box-girders.  The  jacket  was  made  twenty  feet  long,  to 
guard  against  any  possible  danger  of  the  Needle  being  fractured  by  the  weight  of  its  own  ends. 
Wooden  packing  was  driven  in  between  it  and  the  sides  of  the  monolith  to  save  the  surface  of  the  stone 
from  injury.  To  prevent  the  middle  from  slipping  through  while  being  swung  into  a  vertical  position, 
a  stirrup-strap  was  passed  round  the  base  from  two  sides  of  the  jacket.  The  object  in  having  the 
movable  girders  take  the  weight  during  the  operation  of  turning  was  to  afford  the  means  of  lowering 
the  Needle  on  the  pedestal  after  being  swung  into  the  vertical.  Hydraulic  jacks  under  the  girders 
would  effect  this  easily. 

As  soon  as  the  scaffolding  was  ready  the  monolith  was  slowly  raised  in  a  horizontal  position  by 
hydraulic  jacks,  being  followed  up  in  the  ascent  by  timber-blocking.  The  position  of  the  computed 

centre  of  gravity  was  tested  by  actual  trial  before  it  reached  a  great  height.  The  location,  by  figures, 

of  the  centre  of  gravity  of  a  conglomerate  mass,  consisting  of  the  obelisk  with  its  lower  corners 
irregularly  broken,  the  iron  jacket,  and  the  heavy  stirrup-strap  under  the  heel,  is  naturally  liable  to 
error  ;  the  exact  point  was  found  to  be  at  twenty-seven  feet  six  inches  from  the  larger  end. 

While  the  Needle  was  climbing  upward,  the  three  steps  and  pedestal  were  built  up  under  it  to  a 
total  height  of  eighteen  feet  eight  inches.  The  lower  course  of  steps,  resting  on  the  level  of  the 
embankment,  is  sixteen  feet  one  and  one-half  inches  square  and  four  feet  three  inches  high  ;  the 
second  or  middle  step  is  fourteen  feet  square  and  two  feet  four  inches  high  ;  the  top  step  is  twelve 
feet  square  by  one  foot  ten  inches  high,  all  being  built  of  brick-work  with  a  Cornish  granite  outercasing. 
Above  these  steps  is  the  pedestal,  unfortunately  not  a  monolithic  mass  worthy  of  the  shaft  it  supports, 
but  built  up  of  masonry  in  five  courses.  It  is  ten  feet  square  at  the  base  tapering  to  nine  feet  three 

inches  at  the  top,  in  a  height  of  ten  feet  five  inches.  The  three  lower  courses  are  of  brick  and 

Portland  cement  within,  surrounded  by  a  casing  of  Cornish  granite  ;  the  two  upper  are  entirely  of 
Cornish  granite.  In  building  up  this  pedestal  the  middle  row  of  stones  in  an  east  and  west  direction 
were  left  out  to  allow  room  for  the  strap  under  the  heel  of  the  obelisk  ;  on  this  being  removed  when 

the  weight  came  on  the  pedestal,  the  missing  blocks  were  put  in  place. 

Within  the  pedestal  were  deposited  two  earthen  jars  containing  the  following  objects  : — Standard 
foot  and  pound ;  bronze  model  of  the  obelisk  (scale,  half  inch  to  the  foot)  ;  memorial  printed  on 
vellum,  giving  a  brief  account  of  the  removal  of  the  obelisk,  with  plans  of  the  various  arrangements  ; 
jars  of  Doulton  ware  ;  a  piece  of  the  obelisk  stone,  chipped  in  leveling  the  base ;  complete  set  of 
British  coinage,  including  an  Empress  of  India  rupee ;  parchment  copy  of  Dr.  Birch’s  translation  of 
the  obelisk  hieroglyphics  ;  standard  gauge  to  one  thousandth  part  of  an  inch  ;  portrait  of  the  Queen  ; 
Bibles  in  several  languages  ;  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  ;  the  Arabic  Genesis,  and  a  translation  into  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  languages  of  the  sixteenth  verse  of  the  third  chapter  of  St.  John’s  Gospel ;  Brad¬ 
shaw’s  Railway  Guide  ;  Mappin’s  shilling  razor ;  a  case  of  cigars,  pipes,  box  of  hair-pins,  and  sundry 

articles  of  female  adornment ;  Alexandra  feeding-bottle  and  children’s  toys  ;  a  Tangye  hydraulic  jack, 
such  as  used  in  raising  the  obelisk ;  wire  ropes  and  specimens  of  marine  cables ;  map  of  London  ; 
copies  of  the  daily  and  illustrated  papers  ;  photographs  of  a  dozen  pretty  Englishwomen  (presented  by 
gallant  Captain  Carter)  ;  a  two-foot  rule  ;  a  London  Directory,  and  Whitaker’s  Almanac. 

When  the  obelisk  reached  such  a  height  that  on  being  turned  the  heel  would  be  several  inches 
above  and  clear  of  the  pedestal,  controlling  tackles  were  secured  to  both  heel  and  point,  and,  a 
preliminary  trial  on  the  nth  proving  successful,  September  12th  was  fixed  upon  for  the  erection.  The 
time  was  three  p.m.  An  inopportune  shower  coming  on  suddenly  early  in  the  afternoon  somewhat 
thinned  out  the  crowd  that  had  begun  to  assemble ;  but  the  sun  reappeared,  and,  under  the 
pleasant  auspices  of  a  clearing  sky,  a  vast  concourse  lined  the  river  front.  At  the  appointed  hour 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London.  107 

the  controlling  tackles  were  handled,  and  in  half  an  hour  the  obelisk  was  vertical.  The  Union  Jack 

and  Turkish  flag  were  run  up  in  token  of  success,  and  ringing  cheers  bespoke  the  congratulations 

of  the  multitude.  The  operation  of  lowering  the  monument  to  the  pedestal  was  deferred  until  the 
following  day,  and  was  then  performed  with  complete  success. 

Much  circumspection  was  shown  in  deciding  upon  the  embellishments  for  the  Needle  and  its 
immediate  vicinity.  In  August,  1880,  a  plaster-cast  of  a  sphinx,  colored  to  resemble  bronze,  was  placed 
on  one  of  the  smaller  pedestals  on  either  side  of  it,  to  judge  of  the  effect  prior  to  having  the  castings 
made.  In  the  same  way,  and  for  the  same  purpose,  wings  of  ornamental  design  were  placed  under 
the  broken  corners  of  the  Needle  where  it  rests  on  the  masonry  base,  with  filling-pieces  between  them. 
This  work  was  designed  by  Mr.  Vulliamy,  the  architect  of  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  and 

the  effect  proving  satisfactory,  the  castings  were  ordered  and  commenced  in  March,  1881.  They  are 
not  shown  in  the  view  of  the  obelisk  contained  on  Plate  xxxvii,  which,  although  the  most  recent 
photograph  taken  up  to  the  present  time,  antedates  the  placing  of  the  bronzes.  The  two  sphinxes 

are  enlarged  copies  of  one  in  stone  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  at  Alnwick 

Castle,  which  is  supposed  to  be  of  the  same  period  as  the  obelisk,  as  it  bears  on  the  breast  the 
cartouch  of  Thothmes  III.  Each  one  is  nineteen  feet  long,  six  feet  wide,  nine  feet  high  over  all, 

and  weighs  about  seven  tons  ;  the  alloy  is  ninety  parts  of  copper  and  ten  of  tin.  The  filling-pieces 

between  the  wings  at  the  base  of  the  Needle  were  made  to  represent  the  cartouch  of  Thothmes  III. 

The  casting  of  the  sphinxes  was  completed  in  September,  1881,  and  it  was  expected  that  in  the 

course  of  a  month  or  so  every  thing  would  be  completed,  including  the  inscriptions  on  the  pedestal. 

These  read  as  follows:  West  face:  “This  obelisk,  prostrate  for  centuries  in  the  sands  of  Alexandria,  was 
presented  to  the  British  nation  A.  D.  1819,  by  Mohammed  Ali,  Viceroy  of  Egypt, — a  worthy  memorial 
of  our  distinguished  countrymen,  Nelson  and  Abercromby.” — North  face  :  “  This  obelisk,  through  the 
patriotic  zeal  of  Erasmus  Wilson,  F.  R.  S.,  was  brought  from  Alexandria  encased  in  an  iron  cylinder. 

It  was  abandoned  during  a  storm  in  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  recovered  and  erected  on  this  spot  by  John 

Dixon,  C.  E.,  in  the  42d  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria,  1878.”— River  face  :  “William  Askin, 
James  Gardiner,  Joseph  Benbow,  Michael  Burns,  William  Donald,  William  Patan,  perished  in  a  bold 
attempt  to  succor  the  crew  of  the  obelisk  ship  ‘Cleopatra’  during  the  storm,  October  14,  1877.”  1  This 
last  inscription  is  said  to  have  been  added  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Queen. 

The  question  of  the  durability  of  Egyptian  red  granite  in  the  climate  of  London  was  also  considered, 
and,  in  1879,  the  obelisk  was  indurated  with  an  invisible  solution  prepared  by  Mr.  Henry  Browning. 
Opinions  differ  as  to  its  effect  on  the  stone. 

In  connection  with  the  removal  of  such  magnificent  relics  of  a  great  past  as  the  obelisks  of  Egypt, 
the  question  of  expense  is  properly  the  last  to  be  considered.  In  this  particular  case  the  exact 

amount  of  money  that  changed  hands  is  not  easy  to  state  positively,  for  the  reason  that  the  new 

element  was  introduced  of  litigation  with  insurance  companies.  Before  leaving  Egypt  the  “  Cleopatra  ” 
was  insured  for  ,£4,000,  and  Mr.  Dixon,  after  a  prolonged  suit,  recovered  a  portion  of  that  for  part 
payment  of  salvage  to  the  owners  of  the  “  Fitzmaurice.”  That  verdict,  however,  was  appealed  against 
later,  and  resulted  adversely  to  Mr.  Dixon,  who,  it  appears,  had  also  to  bear  the  costs  of  both  sides 
on  that  occasion,  and  therefore  lost  heavily  as  a  contractor.  The  cost  proper  of  the  removal  is  believed 
to  be  in  the  vicinity  of  ,£13,500,  or  about  ^n,5oo  for  the  bare  expenses  of  transporting  and  erecting 
the  obelisk  alone,  and  ,£2,000*  for  its  recovery  from  the  salvors.  This  does  not  include  the  building 
of  the  immense  concrete  foundation,  nor  the  casting  of  the  sphinxes  and  ornamental  work  round 

the  base,  all  of  which  was  done  by  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works.  The  timber  and  a  large 

1  Baedeker’s  Guide  Book  for  1881.  It  is  obviously  not  the  intention  to  leave  the  east  face  of  the  pedestal  bare,  though 
the  inscription  was  not  in  place  at  the  date  of  preparing  this  work.  At  the  time  of  a  recent  visit  to  the  British  capital 
none  had  been  finally  decided  upon. 

a  .£7,000  is  the  amount  stated  by  some  authorities  to  have  been  awarded. — h.  h.  g. 


108  Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London. 

amount  of  other  material  used  in  erecting  the  obelisk  were  furnished  Mr.  Dixon  free  of  cost  by 
merchants. 

Unlike  Fontana  and  LeBas,  his  two  modern  predecessors  in  the  field,  Mr.  Dixon  received  no 
public  recognition  of  his  services  in  beautifying  the  capital  of  his  country.  In  the  busy  modern  world 

the  assumption  of  risks,  in  the  hope  of  gain,  is  considered  an  every-day  matter ;  and,  this  affair  having 

assumed  the  aspect  of  a  private  transaction,  royal  favor  could  but  ill  have  graced  final  success.  The 
time-worn  shaft  will  remain  erect,  however,  for  many  years  to  come,  and  just  so  long  will  it  be  a 
monument  to  the  liberality  and  enterprise  of  two  of  London’s  citizens. 

RECORD  OF  THE  LONDON  OBELISK.  (BY  H.  H.  G.) 

The  record  of  the  London  obelisk  is  the  same  as  that  of  its  mate  now  standing  in  the  Central 
Park,  until  the  former  was  thrown  from  its  pedestal  in  Alexandria.  Thothmes  III  (1591  to  1 565 

B.  C.,  Lepsius),  erected  them  before  the  great  temple  at  Heliopolis.  They  were  removed  to  Alex¬ 

andria  and  re-erected  there  before  the  temple  of  the  Caesars  during  the  reign  of  Augustus,  B.  C.  22. 

The  London  obelisk  remained  standing  at  Alexandria  until  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  There  is  conclusive  evidence  of  its  having  been  mounted,  in  the  same  manner  as  its 
companion,  on  four  bronze  supports.  The  Arabian  geographer,  Edrizi,  writing  before  1154  A.  D., 
refers  to  the  obelisks  at  Alexandria  as  if  both  were  still  standing.  The  Arabian  physician  Abd-el- 
Lateef,  writing  in  1201  A.  D.,  mentions  two  obelisks  near  the  sea  at  Alexandria,  and  says  nothing 
of  one  being  prostrate,  while  he  carefully  notes,  in  his  description  of  Heliopolis,  that  one  of  the 
obelisks  there  had  fallen.  The  next  mention  of  these  obelisks,  that  I  can  find,  is  that  of  Petrus 
Bellonius,  who  visited  Alexandria  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  saw  one  of  them 
prostrate.  From  Mallet’s  “  Earthquake  Catalogue,”  of  the  British  Association  it  appears  that  a 
severe  earthquake  occurred  at  Alexandria  and  Acre  and  throughout  the  Peloponnesus,  Candia,  and 
the  Adriatic  Sea,  on  August  8,  1303.  This  earthquake  nearly  demolished  the  walls  of  Alexandria. 
In  Colonel  Howard  Vyse’s  explorations  and  discoveries  it  is  recorded  that  during  the  reign  of  En 
Nasir,  A.  D.  1301,  an  earthquake  occurred,  so  severe  that  it  is  said  to  have  nearly  ruined  Cairo, 
giving  it  the  appearance  of  a  city  demolished  by  a  siege.  Other  chroniclers  give  the  dates  as 
1 302  and  1 304. 

The  London  obelisk  was  doubtless  thrown  down  by  this  earthquake.  Cooper  and  other 
authorities  allege  that  it  was  overthrown  by  plunderers  who  coveted  its  bronze  supports.  This 
cannot  be  correct,  for  the  crabs  remained  in  some  way  connected  with  the  obelisk,  and  were  studied 
and  written  about  by  travellers  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 

According  to  Birch,  the  vignettes  of  the  pyramidion  represent  Thothmes  III,  in  the  form  of  a 
sphinx,  presenting  offerings  to  Ra  and  Turn,  the  chief  deities  of  Heliopolis. 

Three  columns  of  hieroglyphs  appear  on  each  of  the  four  faces  :  the  central  column  of  each  side 
being  that  of  Thothmes  III  ;  the  lateral  columns  were  added  by  Ramses  II.  The  south  and  east  sides, 
as  erected  at  Alexandria,  are  much  worn. 

The  inscriptions  of  Thothmes  III,  according  to  Birch,  indicate  that  the  obelisk  was  erected  late  in 
this  monarch’s  reign  :  their  one  theme  is  his  devotion  to  the  Temple  of  the  Sun.  He  is  the  “  ruler 
of  An”  (Heliopolis);  he  “supplies  the  altar  of  the  spirits  of  An”;  “his  father  Turn  has  set  up  to 
him  his  great  name,  placing  it  in  the  temple  belonging  to  An”;  mention  is  made  of  “his  festivals 
in  the  midst  of  the  place  of  the  Phoenix”;  “crowned  in  Uas  (Thebes),  he  has  made  his  monument 
to  his  father,  Haremachu  ;  he  has  set  up  to  him  his  great  obelisks,  capped  with  gold.” 

The  inscriptions  of  Ramses  II,  according  to  Birch,  were  added  in  that  monarch’s  youth ;  they 
are  chiefly  devoted  to  the  praise  of  his  conquests.  He  is  “  the  powerful  victor,”  “  making  his  frontiers 
wherever  he  wished”;  “the  guardian  of  Egypt,  the  chastiser  of  foreign  countries,  dragging  the  South  to 


BlERSTADT,  H.  Y. 


ARTOTYPE 


THE 


LONDON 


OBELISK 


Plate  XXXVII 


Removal  of  the  Fallen  Obelisk  of  Alexandria  to  London.  109 

the  Mediterranean  Sea,1  the  North  to  the  poles  of  heaven  ” ;  “  leading  captive  the  Rutennu  (Syrians) 
and  Peti  (Libyans)  out  of  their  countries  to  the  seat  of  the  house  of  his  father  ”  ;  “  the  eyes  of  man¬ 
kind  behold  what  he  has  done.”’ 

1  To  the  Indian  Ocean. — Chabas. 

3  The  translation  of  all  of  the  hieroglyphs  on  the  London  obelisk  cannot  be  found  in  any  publication.  Cooper,  Wilson, 
and  others,  give  partial  translations  which  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  republish  here. 


CHAPTER  V. 


RE-ERECTION  OF  THE  VATICAN  OBELISK. 

BY  LIEUTENANT  SEATON  SCHROEDER,  UNITED  STATES  NAVY. 

IN  the  Piazza  di  San  Pietro  stands  the  largest  entire  obelisk  out  of  Egypt,  and  the  second  in  size  in 
the  world.  The  one  that  surpasses  it  in  height  is  that  of  Queen  Hatasou  at  Karnak.  The 
tallest  ever  quarried,  that  of  St.  John  Lateran,  is  now  in  three  pieces,  having  shared  the  general 
destruction  that  befell  those  monuments  in  Rome. 

Brought  from  Heliopolis  by  the  Emperor  Caligula  early  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
the  Vatican  obelisk  was  originally  set  up  in  the  Circus  of  Caligula,  afterward  named  the  Circus  of 
Nero,  the  scene  of  the  Christians’  martyrdom.  There  it  remained  undisturbed  for  fifteen  centuries,  the 
only  one  of  all  those  now  to  be  seen  in  the  papal  city  that  escaped  being  overthrown.  It  is 
probable  that  but  for  its  timely  transplantation  it  would  soon  have  shared  the  fate  of  its  companions  in 
exile,  for  when  examined  by  Fontana  in  1 585,  it  was  found  to  be  leaning  toward  the  neighboring 
Basilica  of  St.  Peter’s,  the  summit  being  seventeen  inches  from  the  perpendicular. 

Standing  on  a  pedestal  hidden  in  rubbish,  in  a  muddy,  unfrequented  quarter  of  the  city  rarely 
visited  by  the  travellers  that  flocked  annually  to  Rome,  it  contributed  little  to  the  decoration  of  the 
modern  capital,  and  several  of  the  popes  entertained  the  idea  of  setting  it  up  in  some  more 
conspicuous  place.  Prominent  among  them  was  Nicholas  V,  who  also  first  undertook  to  replace  the 
Basilica  of  Constantine  the  Great  by  a  new  and  more  extensive  building,  which,  in  the  course  of  three 
centuries  and  a  half,  became  the  present  magnificent  pile  designated  by  Gibbon  as  “  the  most  glorious 
structure  that  ever  has  been  applied  to  the  use  of  religion.”  The  project  was  revived  at  various  times, 
but  the  obstacles  appeared  so  enormous,  that  it  was  as  often  abandoned.  It  was  reserved  for  Sixtus 
V,  to  display  the  unconquerable  zeal  and  tenacity  of  purpose  necessary  to  smooth  away  all  difficulties. 
Animated  by  great  religious  fervor,  inspired  by  a  wish  to  destroy  all  vestiges  of  idolatry,  and  purify  the 
obelisks  and  all  other  monuments  erected  by  the  pagans  in  honor  of  their  gods,  he  determined  to  begin 
with  this  superb  shaft,  and  purge  it  of  its  stains  by  making  it  serve  to  support  the  holy  cross.  His 
purpose  was  to  transform  the  column  of  Sesostris  into  a  Christian  monument,  and  make  it  a  trophy  of 
Christ. 

A  commission  was  convened  of  distinguished  prelates  and  savants  to  deliberate  upon  the  most 
appropriate  site,  and  more  particularly  upon  the  best  method  of  effecting  its  removal.  This  body  met 
on  the  24th  of  August,  1 585,  but  the  members  fell  to  generalizing  and  discussing  vague  principles,  and 
came  to  no  conclusion.  Nothing  daunted  by  this  failure,  the  pope  issued  an  appeal  to  the  lights  and 
talent  of  the  century,  offering  a  prize  for  the  best  plan.  Over  5oo  persons  attended  this  second  meeting, 
which  took  place  on  the  18th  of  September  of  the  same  year;  Milan,  Venice,  Florence,  Lucca,  Sicily, 
even  Rhodes  and  Greece  were  represented  in  the  assembly,  and  every  one  present  had  a  drawing,  a 


IIO 


1 1 1 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 

model,  or  a  written  description.  Notwithstanding  great  divergence  of  opinion  in  matters  of  detail,  most 
of  the  contestants  argued  that  it  would  be  safer,  easier,  and  more  prudent  to  transport  it  erect  than  to 
lower  it  and  raise  it  again  on  a  new  pedestal ;  some  even  proposed  to  move  it  not  only  erect,  but  on 
its  pedestal.  Others  advocated  a  middle  course — to  incline  it  at  an  angle  [of  forty-five  degrees,  and  haul 
it  along  in  that  position.  There  is  no  written  description  extant  of  the  various  methods  proposed,  but 
in  Fontana’s  book1  there  are  representations  of  several,  giving  early  proof  of  the  ingenious  workings 
of  the  human  mind  when  grappling  with  the  subject  of  obelisks.  In  one  diagram  an  immense  timber 
half-wheel  is  shown,  erected  with  the  diameter  vertical  along  a  side  of  the  monolith  ;  on  being  made  to 
roll  it  would  bring  the  stone  horizontal  on  top  of  it ;  the  erection  to  be  performed  presumably  in  the 
same  way.  In  another,  wedges  alone  were  to  be  used  for  raising  it  clear  of  the  ground,  a  heavy  scaffolding 
keeping  it  steady  in  an  upright  position  during  the  removal.  According  to  a  third  it  was  to  be  inclined 
by  means  of  screws  to  an  angle  of  forty-five  degrees,  when  a  stout  cradle  would  hold  it.  Another 
provided  an  immense  lever,  rigged  as  the  beam  to  a  scales ;  the  short  arm  was  connected  to  the  obelisk, 
and  power  applied  to  the  long  arm  would  raise  or  lower  it  at  will.  In  another  diagram  was  a  large 
timber  half- wheel,  with  the  diameter  horizontal  and  resting  on  the  ground  ;  the  centre  of  the  wheel  was 
close  to  the  foot  of  the  obelisk,  and  on  its  circumference  were  a  number  of  notches  or  cogs  in  which 
supports  would  rest,  and  the  stone  be  lowered  from  one  to  another.  In  still  another,  four  immense 
endless  screws  are  represented  in  a  vertical  position,  two  on  each  opposite  side  of  the  Needle,  parallel 
and  nearly  equal  to  it  in  height ;  two  others,  horizontal,  were  apparently  to  work  in  these,  and  thus 
raise  or  lower  the  shaft.  Many  of  the  plans  were  rather  unpractical,  but  the  collection  speaks  well 
for  the  mechanical  ingenuity  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

Among  the  contestants  was  Dominicus  Fontana,  an  architect,  native  of  Mili,  a  village  on  the 
border  of  Lake  Como,  who  advised  lowering  the  obelisk  flat,  hauling  it  on  rollers  to  the  new  site,  and 
raising  it  again  by  means  of  tackles  and  capstans.  He  had  made  a  small  model  of  the  obelisk  in  lead, 
and  one  of  the  hoisting  apparatus  in  wood,  and  illustrated  his  plan  by  actual  operation  on  a  small  scale 
before  his  hearers.  The  assembly  were  soon  won  to  declare  it  the  best  method  of  all  proposed,  and  the 
prize  was  awarded  him.  At  the  same  time  it  was  decided  that  such  an  immense  work  should  be  done 
under  the  superintendence  of  two  older  architects,  Ammanati  and  Jacques  de  la  Porte,  skilled  in  the  art 
of  moving  heavy  weights  ;  Fontana  was  too  young  ;  he  was  only  forty-two.  Deeply  grieved  at  such 
apparent  lack  of  confidence  in  his  ability,  our  young  friend  bided  his  time,  and  after  the  works  had 
begun  he  joined  a  party  of  friends  going  to  Monte  Cavallo.  The  pope  naturally  questioned  him  about 
the  obelisk,  to  which  he  replied  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  reason  about  that  matter.  “  At 
present,”  said  he,  “  but  one  idea  fills  my  mind  and  absorbs  my  intellectual  faculties.  I  am  afraid 
modifications  will  be  introduced  into  my  system  that  may  cause  serious  accidents,  for  which  I  would  be 
held  partly  responsible.  The  more  I  think  of  it  the  more  convinced  I  am  that  injustice  has  been  done 
me,  for  no  one  can  carry  out  a  design  as  well  as  the  designer.”  The  justice  of  his  complaint  was 
evident,  and  he  was  directed  forthwith  to  assume  charge  of  all  operations.  Overjoyed  at  his  success 
Fontana  hastily  collected  fifty  men  and  ran  to  the  selected  site  to  begin  the  trench  for  the  foundation  ; 
this  was  on  Wednesday,  September  25,  1 585. 

Wishing  to  hasten  and  facilitate  the  work  in  every  possible  way,  Pope  Sixtus  gave  him  authority 
to  demolish  all  buildings  that  might  interfere  with  the  carrying  out  of  his  plans,  and  to  take,  in  Rome 
or  other  cities  of  the  Holy  See,  all  materials,  instruments,  or  provisions  necessary,  for  which  an  indem¬ 
nity  would  be  paid  the  proprietors  afterward.  All  papal  employes  were  likewise  enjoined  to  aid  and 
second  Fontana  in  every  possible  way,  under  penalty  of  incurring  the  extreme  displeasure  of  the  sovereign 

1  Della  Trasportatione  dell'  obelisco  Vaticano,  et  delle  fabriche  di  nostro  Signore  Papa  Sisto  V.  Fatle  dal  cavallier  Dome?iico 
Fontana .  Roma ,  1590.  This  work  is  to  be  found  in  the  Astor  Library,  New  York.  The  drawings  were  reproduced  in 
Templum  Vaticanum  et  ipsius  origo  etc.  Editu?n  ab  equite  Carolo  Fontana ,  Roma,  1694  ;  also  in  Castelli  a  Ponti,  di  M astro 
Niccola  Zabaglia,  1743. 


I  I  2 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 


pontiff.  Armed  with  these  full  powers,  he  sent  trusted  agents  to  various  points  to  collect  the  materials 
necessary.  The  timber  was  drawn  from  the  forests  of  Campo  Morto,  twenty  miles  from  Rome,  immense 
balks  being  hewn  and  drawn  to  the  city  in  vehicles  to  which  were  harnessed  seven  pairs  of  oxen. 
While  the  materials  were  being  thus  collected  he  personally  superintended  the  manufacture  of  the  rope 
to  be  used  in  raising  the  monolith.  He  also  tested  by  actual  experiment  the  power  of  each  capstan 
and  the  strength  of  the  rope,  and  decided  what  power  to  apply  to  each  to  insure  not  surpassing  the 
elastic  limit  of  the  hemp.  Many  critics  said  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  apply  an  equal  power 
through  all  the  capstans,  and  that  some  would  therefore  bear  all  the  strain  ;  to  obviate  this  he  pro¬ 
portioned  the  capstans  so  that  the  full  power  developed  by  each  would  not  be  great  enough  to  part 
its  tackle.  Thus,  when  the  men  and  horses  on  a  capstan  had  hove  to  their  utmost,  they  would 
simply  be  unable  to  heave  any  farther,  and  others  which  might  not  be  bearing  a  proper  strain  would 
then  catch  up. 

The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  ascertain  the  weight  to  be  lifted.  Careful  measurements  proved 
the  dimensions  of  the  obelisk  to  be  as  follows  : 


FEET.  INCHES. 

Length  of  main  shaft,  107^-  palmi1  =  78  8.92 

Side  of  base,  i2tV  “  =  8  10.21 

Side  of  top,  8|-  “  =  5  11*05 


FEET.  INCHES. 

Height  of  pyramidion,  6  palmi  =  4  4.74 
Total  height,  1 1 3^-  “  =  83  1.66 


The  slight  height  of  the  pyramidion  struck  Fontana  as  being  strange,  and  on  studying  it  out 
he  concluded  that  Pliny  was  right  in  saying  that  it  had  been  broken  during  the  erection  in  the  first 
century.  The  rule  generally  adhered  to  in  fixing  the  proportions  of  obelisks  seems  to  have  been 
that  the  height  of  the  pyramidion  should  be  once  and  a  half  a  side  of  its  base,  and  Fontana  verified 
this  rule  at  the  time  by  measurements  of  other  obelisks  in  the  city.  It  is  fair  to  suppose,  therefore, 
that  the  original  height  of  this  pyramidion  was  eight  feet,  10.45  inches,  making  the  entire  height 
eighty-seven  feet,  6.30  inches.  Mr.  Joseph  Bonomi  gives  the  height  of  this  obelisk  as  eighty-eight 
feet  two  inches.2 

Accepting  Fontana’s  figures,  the  dimensions  of  the  obelisk  give  a  volume  of  4,403  cubic  feet, 
and  a  weight  of  three  hundred  and  twenty-six  English  tons,  the  specific  gravity  of  the  stone  being 
2.66.  There  being  no  hieroglyphics  on  it,  this  may  be  regarded  as  very  nearly  its  exact  actual 
weight.  Fontana  carefully  weighed  a  cube  of  the  stone  measuring  precisely  one  palm,  and  found  it  to 
be  eighty-six  libbre  or  64.302  pounds  avoirdupois,  and  deduced  973,53711  libbre  or  324.92  tons  as  the 
weight  of  the  monolith.  To  this  had  to  be  added  a  certain  allowance  for  the  sheathing  and  the 
attachments  necessary  in  handling  it. 

Having  found  the  weight  to  be  moved  and  the  power  capable  of  being  transmitted  by  each  appa¬ 
ratus,  it  was  decided  that  forty  tackles  worked  by  as  many  capstans,  moved  by  eight  hundred  men 
and  seventy-five  horses,  together  with  five  great  levers  worked  by  one  hundred  and  six  men,  and 
wedges  driven  under  the  base,  would  furnish  sufficient  power  to  allow  for  lack  of  simultaneity  in 
heaving.  So  we  see  that  Fontana  used  all  three  of  the  fundamental  mechanical  applications  of  power, 
— the  pulley,  the  lever,  and  the  inclined  plane.  The  capstans  were  made  with  four  bars  ;  to  the  first 
and  third  bars  horses  were  harnessed,  while  the  other  two  were  worked  by  men. 

The  plan  of  lowering  the  obelisk  involved  first  raising  it  bodily  about  two  feet,  in  order  to  introduce 
underneath  it  a  platform  on  rollers,  on  to  which  it  would  be  lowered,  and  on  which  it  would  be  rolled 
to  its  new  site.  As  tackles  were  to  be  used  in  hoisting  it,  it  was  necessary  to  provide  fixed  points 
for  the  upper  blocks  of  the  pulleys,  and  for  this  purpose  was  built  an  immense  scaffolding  ninety  feet 
high,  which  was  universally  dubbed  Fontana’s  castle.  On  Plate  xxxviii  is  a  perspective  view  of  this 
scaffolding,  the  details  of  construction  being  as  follows  :  The  principal  feature  consisted  in  eight  timber 


1  Palmi  d’  architettura  ;  one  palmo  =  0.7325  feet,  =  8.79  inches. 


2  Erasmus  Wilson. 


Plate  XXXVIII. 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk.  1 1 3 

uprights,  three  and  a  half  feet  apart,  four  on  either  side  of  the  column.  Each  upright  was  forty  inches 
square  in  section,  built  of  oak  and  walnut,  four  beams  in  thickness  ;  the  butts  of  the  pieces  were  care¬ 
fully  shifted,  the  various  parts  put  together  without  tenons  or  mortises,  but  secured  by  key-bolts,  iron 
bands  at  every  nine  feet,  and  rope  lashings  equally  spaced.  The  latter  were  tightened  by  wedges 
driven  between  them  and  the  wood.  The  uprights  were  sustained  in  their  vertical  position  by  struts, 

which  had  also  to  be  fashioned  by  uniting  several  pieces  of  timber ;  the  struts  and  uprights  were 

secured  to  each  other  by  cross  and  diagonal  tie-beams,  iron  bands,  and  wooldings.  The  tops  of  the 
uprights  were  connected  by  trusses,  as  is  shown  in  section  through  structure,  Plate  xxxviii,  the  string-pieces 
running  along  over  these  trusses  being  over  two  feet  square  ;  to  these  were  lashed  the  upper  blocks 
of  the  tackles.  It  was  seen  that  when  the  pressure  was  thrown  on  the  uprights,  the  struts  branching 
out  would  prevent  their  buckling  outward,  but  that  they  were  liable  to  bend  inward.  To  prevent  this, 
horizontal  tie-beams  were  thrown  across  from  upright  to  upright,  bolted  to  them,  and  butted  against 
the  struts  ;  afterward  they  had  to  be  removed  one  at  a  time  as  the  obelisk  was  lowered.  The  entire 
“  castle  ”  rested  upon  a  heavy  timber  platform,  into  which  the  uprights  and  struts  were  stepped  with 
tenon  and  mortise  ;  in  the  construction  of  the  whole  fabric,  none  but  key-bolts,  or  such  as  could  be 

easily  drawn,  were  used,  to  facilitate  dismantling  it  and  setting  it  up  again  on  the  new  site.  Finally, 

for  perfect  security,  eight  heavy  shrouds  or  stays  were  fitted  to  the  top  of  the  castle,  and  set  up  taut 
to  ensure  stability. 

While  this  scaffolding  was  being  put  up,  the  ground  was  levelled  off,  houses  that  interfered  with 
the  efficient  working  of  the  capstans  torn  down,  and  the  obelisk  encased  in  a  protective  covering 
of  matting  and  two-inch  plank.  Twelve  iron  bars,  four  inches  wide  and  two  inches  thick,  were  passed 
beneath  the  heel  and  up,  three  along  each  face ;  they  had  shoulders  against  which  butted  nine 
horizontal  iron  bands,  which  did  the  double  duty  of  securing  the  planking  and  affording  means  of 
attaching  the  lower  blocks  of  the  tackles.  The  obelisk  resting  on  four  bronze  blocks  made  it  possible 
to  pass  the  bars  under  the  base  without  injuring  the  pedestal.  Not  trusting  entirely  to  iron,  additional 
rope  lashings  were  unsparingly  provided,  and  Fontana,  estimated  the  weight  of  the  matting,  wood,  rope, 
and  iron  thus  used  to  be  about  23  tons,  increasing  the  entire  weight  to  be  handled  to  about  35o  tons. 
The  brass  globe  surmounting  the  obelisk  was  taken  down  as  soon  as  it  could  be  reached  ;  it  had  been 
thought  possible  that  this  contained  the  ashes  of  one  of  the  Caesars,  but  it  was  found  to  be  a  solid 
casting.  There  were  a  number  of  deep  dents  in  it,  which  were  conjectured  to  be  the  marks  of 
arquebuse-shots  inflicted  possibly  during  the  storming  of  the  ancient  Western  capital ;  the  dust  collected 
in  them  certainly  bespoke  a  moderate  antiquity. 

The  excavations  at  the  new  site  in  St.  Peter’s  Square  were  also  continued  in  search  of  solid 
ground,  and  a  number  of  commemorative  medals  were  deposited  in  the  pit,  most  of  them  being 
contained  in  two  caskets  of  travertine  stone,  holding  a  dozen  each.  On  one  face  they  bore  the  image 
of  our  Saviour,  and  on  the  other  various  symbols  among  which  were  the  following :  a  man  asleep 
under  a  tree,  with  the  motto  Perfecta  Securitas;  three  mountains  of  which  the  right-hand  one  was 
surmounted  by  a  cornucopia,  the  left  by  a  laurel  branch,  and  the  middle  one  by  a  sword  the  point  of 
which,  turned  heavenward,  supported  a  balance,  the  inscription  below  being  Fecit  in  monte  conviviu77i 
pinguium ;  St.  Francis  kneeling  before  a  church  in  ruins,  with  the  exhortation  Vade  Fra7icisce  et 
repara.  On  some  of  the  coins  was  struck  the  effigy  of  Pope  Sixtus  V,  with  the  figures  of  Religion 
and  Justice  on  the  reverse  side. 

On  the  28th  of  April,  1 586,  every  thing  was  ready,  and  the  30th  was  appointed  for  the  lowering. 
On  the  29th  Fontana  received  the  papal  benediction,  and  before  daylight  of  the  30th  he  and  his 
assistants  took  communion ;  two  masses  were  also  held  to  implore  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  By 
daybreak  the  workmen  were  all  at  their  posts,  and  every  avenue  leading  to  the  ground  was  thronged 
by  dense  crowds,  which  comprised  all  the  most  distinguished  literary  and  scientific  men  of  the  city  ; 


1 14  Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 

a  great  many  strangers  had  also  flocked  to  Rome  to  witness  the  operation,  and  due  precautions  were 
taken  against  disorders  liable  to  be  caused  by  such  a  gathering.  A  large  surrounding  area  was  fenced 

off,  and  a  proclamation  pronounced  a  sentence  of  death  on  any  one  that  should  force  his  way  through 

the  barricade  ;  absolute  silence  was  also  commanded  under  severe  penalties. 

Fontana  first  exhorted  the  workmen  to  do  their  duty  loyally,  and  to  pay  strict  attention  to  orders, 
and  recalled  to  them  the  signals  to  be  used.  At  the  first  sound  of  the  trumpet  the  capstans  were  to 

heave  round  together  ;  the  signal  to  stop  was  a  stroke  of  a  bell  at  the  scaffolding.  He  then  visited 

every  part  of  the  enclosure  to  satisfy  himself  that  all  were  in  their  proper  places  ;  men  and  horses  were 
at  the  capstan-bars  ;  the  levers,  forty-four  feet  long,  were  adjusted,  three  on  the  west  side  and  two  on 
the  east,  with  ropes  hanging  from  the  ends,  some  of  which  were  taken  to  small  capstans  ;  the  twelve 
carpenters  were  in  readiness  to  drive  the  wood  and  iron  wedges  under  the  obelisk,  the  object  of  these 
being  partly  to  help  raise  the  mass,  and  partly  to  form  permanent  supports  for  the  monolith  as  it  rose 
from  the  bronze  crabs,  so  that  the  weight  should  at  no  time  be  borne  wholly  by  the  tackles.  The 
men  detailed  for  this  duty  were  provided  with  iron  helmets  as  a  protection  against  fragments  of  wood 
or  iron  that  might  come  tumbling  from  aloft. 

The  architect  then  assumed  a  conspicuous  position  whence  he  could  be  seen  by  all,  and,  speaking 
in  a  loud  voice,  recalled  the  religious  motives  that  prompted  the  transplantation  of  the  obelisk.  “  The 
work  that  we  are  about  to  undertake  is  in  the  cause  of  religion,  and  for  the  exaltation  of  the  holy 
cross.  Implore  with  me  the  help  of  God,  the  sovereign  moving  power ;  let  us  ask  for  His  help, 
without  which  all  our  efforts  must  be  in  vain.”  And  all  within  hearing — noblemen,  citizens,  priests, 
strangers — fell  on  their  knees  and  recited  a  pater  and  an  ave.  A  striking  scene  must  it  have  been,  and 
typical  of  that  curious  age. 

A  blast  of  the  trumpet  set  the  capstans  revolving  round  their  spindles  ;  the  tackles  assumed  the 
strain,  the  ends  of  the  levers  descended  slowly,  the  hammers  were  heard  ringing  against  the  heads  of  the 
wedges,  and  the  majestic  shaft,  heretofore  leaning  toward  the  cathedral,  drew  itself  up  to  a  vertical  pose 
amid  a  portentous  creaking  of  wood  and  tackles.  A  stroke  of  the  bell  brought  every  thing  to  a  stand¬ 
still.  The  vibration  was  only  caused  by  the  compression  due  to  lifting  bodily  a  dead  weight  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  tons,  and  no  material  harm  had  been  done.  The  topmost  iron  band  was  found 
broken  and  was  immediately  replaced  by  a  rope  lashing  held  down  by  frappings  under  the  heel. 
Another  heave  was  then  ordered,  and  the  obelisk  left  its  metal  supports  ;  the  signals  were  repeated  a 
dozen  times,  and  finally,  at  about  four  in  the  afternoon,  it  had  been  raised  twenty-four  inches.  This  was 
announced  by  the  firing  of  a  small  cannon,  and  immediately  the  batteries  of  the  city  responded  with  a 
joyous  salute. 

An  inspection  of  the  apparatus  the  next  day  revealed  the  fact  that  most  of  the  horizontal  iron 
bands  were  broken,  twisted,  or  displaced ;  disaster  had  probably  been  averted  only  by  Fontana’s  careful 
foresight  in  rigging  rope  preventers.  The  obelisk  now  resting  on  the  wedges  under  the  corners,  and 
steadied  by  the  tackles,  the  blocks  that  had  supported  it  for  fifteen  centuries  were  removed.  Two  of 
these  gave  no  trouble,  but  the  others  were  connected  with  the  pedestal  by  long  dovetailed  spurs, 
solidly  leaded  in  place,  and  it  required  four  days  and  four  nights  to  break  them  out ;  in  the  end  it  was 
only  accomplished  by  chipping  away  the  stone  round  the  mortises.  From  a  small  drawing  in  one  of 
Fontana  s  plates,  it  appears  that  these  blocks  were  very  similar  to  the  crabs  which  were  found  under 
Cleopatra  s  Needle,  and  which  are  now  to  be  seen  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  in  New  York. 
The  two  with  spurs  weighed  six  hundred  pounds  each,  or  about  the  same  as  those  used  by  Pontius. 

The  operations  still  to  be  performed  required  extensive  alterations  in  the  various  apparatus.  The 
end  of  the  rolling  cradle  was  introduced  beneath  the  obelisk,  between  the  wedges  at  the  corners, 
from  right  to  left  as  viewed  in  the  left-hand  figure  of  Plate  xxxviii.  It  was  necessary  then  to  change  the 
movable  blocks  of  the  tackles  from  what  was  to  be  the  under  side  of  the  Needle  to  some  other 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 


1 1 5 

part.  Four  tackles  were  also  rigged  to  pull  the  cradle  along  to  the  left  as  the  monolith  was  lowered. 
As  a  precaution  against  a  possible  yielding  of  the  ropes  at  any  time,  a  heavy  movable  strut  was 
devised  and  placed  against  the  Needle,  near  the  middle,  the  upper  end  being  seized  by  an  iron  collar 
round  the  shaft,  which  formed  the  axis  on  which  it  could  revolve,  the  lower  end  being  free  to  move 
away  to  the  right  when  desired.  To  afford  means  of  checking  this  movement  so  as  to  make  it 
support  the  weight,  a  roller  was  placed  between  two  parts  of  the  strut  (see  section  through  movable 
strut ,  Plate  xxxviii) ;  two  ropes  were  wound  several  times  round  this  roller,  and  the  ends  secured  to 
the  columns  of  the  scaffolding  ;  the  roller  revolving  permitted  the  foot  of  the  strut  to  recede  as  the 
obelisk  was  lowered,  but  by  placing  a  lever  in  a  mortise  cut  for  the  purpose,  this  rotation  could  be 
stopped,  and  the  strut  kept  steady.  As  a  prop  of  this  kind  could  only  act  efficiently  at  certain 
favorable  angles,  several  were  prepared  of  different  lengths,  so  that  at  no  period  of  the  descent  need 
the  obelisk  be  left  without  proper  support. 

All  the  preparations  for  the  new  work  were  completed  by  the  7th  of  May,  and  the  operations 
were  resumed  on  that  day.  The  trumpet  and  the  bell  were  used  as  before  to  regulate  the  capstans. 
As  the  lowering  tackles  were  slacked,  the  cradle  and  the  heel  of  the  monolith  were  pulled  away  to 
the  westward.  It  was  Fontana’s  intention  at  first  to  keep  the  lowering  tackles  nearly  vertical,  but 
as  the  work  progressed  that  had  to  be  given  up ;  toward  the  end  also  the  thrust  of  the  obelisk 
was  such  as  not  only  to  render  the  four  tackles  on  the  heel  unnecessary,  but  to  require  one  from 
the  opposite  direction  to  check  it.  To  prevent  all  shock  in  landing  it,  five  tackles  were  also  taken 
from  the  point  of  the  Needle  to  the  arch  of  the  sacristy  of  St.  Peter’s.  The  operation  was  entirely 
successful,  though  frequent  interruptions  were  necessary  to  rig  the  new  tackles,  and  to  remove  cross¬ 
beams  of  the  scaffolding  that  were  in  the  way  of  the  descending  shaft.  By  four  o’clock  the  obelisk  lay 
safe  and  sound  on  the  cradle,  and,  amid  shouts  and  universal  greetings,  Fontana  was  carried  home  in 
triumph  escorted  by  drums  and  trumpets. 

The  monument  had  now  to  be  dragged  to  its  new  site  in  St.  Peter’s  Square,  a  distance  of  two 
hundred  and  seventy-five  yards.  The  level  of  the  ground  here  was  a  little  more  than  twenty-nine  feet 
lower  than  at  the  old  site,  but  when  the  height  of  the  pedestal,  twenty-seven  feet,  was  considered,  it 
was  found  that  the  descent  would  be  only  about  two  feet  in  the  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  yards. 
A  roadway  of  earth  was  built  on  that  grade,  the  sides  being  supported  by  a  wood  revetement  propped 
up  by  struts  ;  the  revetement  was  further  supported  from  within  by  transverse  and  diagonal  braces.  The 
height  of  this  viaduct  increased  from  zero  at  the  old  site  to  twenty-seven  feet  at  the  new,  the  breadth 
being  seventy-three  feet  at  the  bottom  and  thirty-six  and  one  half  at  the  top.  The  obelisk  was  only 
hauled  away  clear  of  the  pedestal  at  first,  so  as  to  admit  of  taking  down  the  scaffolding,  and  of 
removing  the  underlying  masonry,  which  was  rebuilt  in  precisely  the  same  shape  at  the  new  site.  The 
foundations  required  a  great  deal  of  labor  and  expense,  as  the  nature  of  the  ground  was  not  favorable 
for  supporting  a  heavy  weight.  An  excavation  forty-three  feet  square  had  been  made  to  a  depth  of 
twenty-four  feet,  and  as  the  soil  then  reached  was  not  firm  enough,  oak  and  chestnut  piles  eighteen 
feet  long  and  nine  inches  in  diameter,  after  being  barked,  were  driven  in  a  solid  mass.  Over  this  was 
laid  an  immense  bed  of  concrete,  reaching  nearly  to  the  ground  level,  made  of  basalt  and  a  mortar 
composed  of  lime  and  puzzolana. 

As  Fontana  dug  down  to  unearth  the  old  pedestal,  he  found  the  various  courses  laid  as  follows, 
beginning  with  the  top.  First  was  a  plinth  ninety-six  and  one  half  inches  high,  one  hundred  and  seven 
and  one  half  broad  on  the  east  side,  one  hundred  and  fourteen  and  one  quarter  on  the  west,  and  one 
hundred  and  sixteen  and  one  half  on  the  north  and  south ;  the  weight  was  computed  to  be  fifty-five  and 
one  half  tons.  Under  this  was  found  a  block  thirty-five  inches  high,  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  inches 
broad  at  the  top,  and  one  hundred  and  fourteen  and  one  quarter  at  the  bottom,  weighing  twenty-two 
and  one  half  tons.  Then  came  another  plinth  one  hundred  and  fourteen  and  one  quarter  inches  high, 


1 1 6  Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk . 

but,  strange  to  say,  less  broad  than  the  top  one,  being  only  one  hundred  and  three  and  one  quarter 
inches  on  the  east  side,  and  one  hundred  and  fourteen  and  one  quarter  on  the  others.  The  finish  of 
this  block  was  much  less  perfect  than  that  of  the  topmost,  and  Fontana  concluded  that  the  latter  might 
be  of  more  ancient  origin,  not  successfully  reproduced  by  the  architect  of  the  other.  For  this  reason 
he  decided  to  replace  them  in  the  same  relative  positions.  The  weight  of  this  third  block  is  not  given 
in  his  account,  but,  assuming  the  specific  gravity  of  the  material  to  be  2.75,  which  was  evidently 
that  adopted  by  him,  it  is  about  sixty-three  tons. 

Next  beneath  was  found  white  marble,  in  blocks  connected  by  iron  clamps  cased  in  lead ;  the 
iron  was  found  to  be  in  a  perfect  state  of  preservation  although  it  had  been  under  water  apparently 
for  centuries.  Last  of  all  were  the  courses  of  travertine  stone  forming  three  steps,  which  rested  on 
decomposed  concrete. 

In  rebuilding  this  substructure,  two  inches  had  to  be  chiselled  off  the  top  of  the  upper  plinth  to 
form  an  even  surface,  in  consequence  of  its  having  been  chipped  away  to  remove  the  crabs.  Some 
more  medals,  similar  to  those  previously  deposited  in  the  concrete,  were  placed  within  the  masonry. 
Two  gold  ones,  on  the  upper  tier  of  steps,  bore  the  effigy  of  the  pope  on  one  side,  and  on  the 
other  the  images  of  Religion  and  Justice.  Between  the  two  inferior  strata  of  marble  was  placed  a 
slab  of  the  same  stone,  on  which  were  carved  in  Latin  the  names  of  Pope  Sixtus  V,  and  of  Fontana, 
and  the  name  of  the  latter’s  native  town,  together  with  an  account  of  the  operations.  Finally,  eight 
square  holes  were  made  in  the  travertine  slabs  to  receive  the  heels  of  the  uprights  of  the  scaffolding ; 
these,  in  consequence,  had  to  be  made  some  twenty-seven  feet  longer  than  before.  When  all  this  was 
done,  earth  was  compactly  rammed  all  around,  forming  a  continuation  of  the  viaduct,  which  here 
widened  out  to  ninety-one  and  one  half  feet  at  the  bottom  and  sixty-nine  and  one  half  at  the  top. 
The  scaffolding  was  then  rebuilt,  and  the  obelisk  slowly  dragged  by  means  of  tackles  and  capstans 
until  the  point  was  over  the  centre  of  the  pedestal,  a  commemorative  slab  having  been  left  to  mark  the 
spot  where  it  had  stood  for  so  many  centuries. 

On  the  10th  of  September,  i586,  the  erection  took  place,  being  preceded  by  the  same  religious 
ceremonies  as  the  lowering.  As  the  apex  of  the  shaft  rose  under  the  action  of  forty  capstans,  worked 
by  one  hundred  and  forty  horses  and  eight  hundred  men,  horizontal  tackles  pulled  the  heel  and  cradle 
forward,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  hoisting  gear  acting  as  nearly  vertically  as  possible.  At  about 
three  o’clock,  when  an  angle  of  forty-five  degrees  was  reached,  a  respite  was  granted  for  dinner,  all 
having  been  at  work  without  intermission  since  daylight ;  the  movable  strut  was  again  brought  into 
play  and  proved  itself  an  efficient  auxiliary  support.  At  nearly  sunset,  thirteen  hours  after  beginning 
operations,  the  obelisk  was  vertical  over  the  pedestal,  but  separated  from  it  by  the  cradle.  To  free  the 
latter,  the  monolith  had  to  be  raised  bodily,  and  this  was  accomplished,  on  the  following  day,  with  the 
same  combination  of  apparatus  as  on  the  old  site, — forty  capstans,  five  levers,  and  the  wedges.  Acted 
upon  simultaneously  by  all  these  motors  the  obelisk  was  lifted  a  certain  distance,  and  then  rested  on 
the  wedges,  while  the  cradle  was  removed  and  the  bronze  crabs  replaced  precisely  as  they  had  been 
found.  All  this  took  some  time,  and  it  was  not  until  the  eighth  day  after  the  erection  that  the  tackles 
were  slacked,  the  levers  eased  up,  the  wedges  carefully  and  slowly  withdrawn,  and  the  obelisk  landed 
firmly  and  permanently  on  its  four  supports. 

There  is  a  very  pretty  little  anecdote  related  in  connection  with  this  operation,  which  naturally 
appeals  to  one’s  imagination,  but  which  will  scarcely  stand  the  test  of  practical  inquiry.  It  is  said 
that  the  progress  of  the  work  was  interrupted,  and  the  process  of  erection  on  the  eve  of  failing  from 
the  stretching  of  the  ropes,  when  a  sailor  named  Bresca,  regardless  of  consequences,  cried  out,  “Acqua 
alle  funi !  ’  (wet  the  ropes !),  and  that  this  practical  advice  being  acted  upon  the  weight  was  lifted. 
The  legend  goes  on  to  the  effect  that  not  only  was  Bresca  pardoned  for  violating  the  strict  orders 
regarding  silence,  but  that  the  pope  conferred  upon  him  and  all  his  posterity  the  privilege  of  supplying 


Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 


ii  7 

St.  Peter’s  with  palm  leaves  on  Palm  Sunday,  as  an  acknowledgment  of  his  services  on  that  memorable 
occasion.  It  seems  that  there  is  now  a  family  of  that  name  in  Bordighera,  possessing  that  privilege, 
but,  iconoclastic  as  it  may  appear,  the  story  of  the  origin  of  the  grant  will  not  hold  water.  If  the 
ropes  were  stretching  it  was  because  the  elastic  limit  of  the  hemp  had  been  exceeded  by  too  severe 
a  strain  ;  wetting  the  rope  would  have  had  the  effect  of  contracting  the  fibre  and,  therefore,  of 
increasing  the  strain.  Moreover,  the  whole  weight  of  the  monolith  was  never  allowed  to  come  entirely 
upon  the  tackles,  except  in  lowering.  Fontana,  in  speaking  of  the  wedges  used  in  lifting  it,  carefully 
explained  that  their  object  was  mainly  to  prevent  the  Needle  resting  unsupported  in  air.1  In  describing 
the  preparations  for  lowering  he  also  weighed  upon  the  similar  use  of  the  movable  strut,  which  was 
again  called  into  requisition  in  raising  the  obelisk. 

If  the  anecdote  has  any  foundation  in  fact,  it  could  only  be  that  the  power  applied  was  insuf¬ 
ficient,  and  that  the  contraction  of  the  ropes  by  moisture  supplied  the  deficiency.  But  this  theory  is 
also  open  to  serious  objections.  When  a  rope  is  subjected  to  a  strain  such  as  was  sustained  by  these, 
the  fibres  are  so  compressed  and  the  surface  of  the  rope  so  hard,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  any 
moisture  to  penetrate  into  it  for  a  long  time,  especially  if  new  rope  as  this  was.  Also,  if,  unfortu¬ 
nately,  the  moisture  had  penetrated  into  any  or  all  of  the  forty  tackles  used,  an  irregularity  of  contraction 
would  have  been  produced  that  in  all  probability  would  have  led  to  their  successive  rupture. 

Honor  to  whom  honor  is  due.  There  is  no  valid  reason  for  imputing  threatened  failure  to 
Fontana,  averted  only  by  the  timely  inspiration  of  a  practical  sailor.  After  computing  the  weight  to 
be  lifted,  and  supervising  personally  the  making  of  the  rope,  he  tested  the  power  of  every  apparatus 
by  actual  trial,  and,  from  that,  in  support  of  what  theory  had  pointed  out,  decided  upon  the  number 
of  motors  necessary.  His  subsequent  account  of  it  also  seems  to  be  so  explicit  and  so  frank,  that  we 
cannot  believe  he  would  have  omitted  mentioning  any  such  incident.  Rewards,  pecuniary  and  honorary, 
were  lavished  upon  him.  The  pope  made  him  a  Knight  of  the  Golden  Spur,  and  gave  him  a  pension 
of  2,000  gold  scudi,  reversible  to  his  heirs,  besides  an  immediate  present  of  5,ooo  more  ;  also  all  the 
wood  and  other  material  left  from  the  operations,  the  value  of  which  was  estimated  at  20,000  scudi. 
The  cost  of  the  removal  and  erection  is  stated  by  Carolo  Fontana  to  have  been  36,975  scudi , 
equivalent  to  about  44,000  dollars.2 

On  the  apex  of  the  obelisk  was  placed  a  bronze  cross  seven  feet  four  inches  high,  which  was 
removed  in  1740,  when  some  relics  of  our  Saviour  were  deposited  in  a  cavity  made  for  the  purpose. 
Bronze  lions,  gilded,  were  also  placed  under  the  corners  and  apparently  sustain  the  weight,  for  they 
conceal  the  crabs  which  really  do  that  duty. 

Inscriptions  on  this  obelisk  and  pedestal  are  numerous.  On  the  east  and  west  sides  of  the  shaft 
itself,  is  still  visible  in  duplicate  the  original  dedication  to  Augustus  and  Tiberius,  as  follows  :  “  Divo. 
Caes.  Divi.  Ivlii.  F.  Avgvsto.  Ti.  Caes.  Divi.  Avg.  F.  Avgvs.  Sacrvm.”  There  are  also  brief  modern 
inscriptions  on  all  faces  of  the  pedestal.  On  the  south  side  is  a  simple  record  of  the  removal :  “  Sixtus 
V.  Pont.  Max.  obefiscum  Vaticanum  diu  gentium  impio  cultu  dedicatum  ad  Apostolorum  limina  operoso 
labore  transtulit.  Anno  mdlxxxvi.”  On  the  north  side  the  consecration  of  the  obelisk  to  the  holy  cross 
is  commemorated :  “  Sixtus  V.  Pont.  Max.  cruci  invictae  obeliscum  Vaticanum  ab  impia  superstitione 
expiatum  justius  et  felicius  consecravit.  Anno  mdlxxxvi.  Pont.  II.”  On  the  east  side  is  the  pious 
apostrophe  :  “  Christus  vincit.  Christus  regnat.  Christus  imperat.  Christus  ab  omni  malo  plebem  suam 
defendat.”  On  the  west  side  is  to  be  seen  the  somewhat  vainglorious  passage :  “  Ecce  Crux  Domini 
fugite  partes  adversae  vicit  Leo  de  Tribu  Juda.” 

1  “  Accib  che  mai  non  stesse  la  Guglia  in  aria  sopra  le  corde.” 

2  The  papal  gold  scudo  of  the  16th  century  did  not  vary  in  weight  materially  from  fifty  grains.  A  silver  scudo  or  more 
correctly  piastra  of  Paul  V,  1620,  recently  tested  through  the  kind  offices  of  a  friend  in  the  U.  S.  Mint,  Philadelphia, 
weighed  482  grains,  913  fine;  its  original  weight,  according  to  Mr.  J.  Ross  Snowden,  was  491.89  grains,  which  would  put 
its  value  at  about  $1.20  United  States  money. 


1 1 8  Re-erection  of  the  Vatican  Obelisk. 

Fontana  also  mentions  an  inscription  on  the  side  of  the  pyramidion  facing  St.  Peter’s,  the 
illegibility  of  which  now  is  easily  laid  to  the  charge  of  three  centuries  of  rain  and  dust.  It  read  : 
“  Sanctissimae  cruci  Sixtus  V.  Pont.  Max.  consecravit  e  priore  sede  avvlsvm  et  Caess.  Aug.  ac  Tib. 
S.  L.  ablatum  mdlxxxvi.”  Still  one  other  remains  to  be  mentioned,  carved  on  the  bottom  course  of 
the  pedestal :  “  Dominicus  Fontana  ex  pago  Mili  agri  Novocomensis  transtulit  et  erexit.”  This  is 
shown,  not  very  clearly,  in  one  of  the  plates  illustrating  Fontana’s  book,  and  Quatremere  de  Quincy1 
mentions  it  being  still  discernible  in  1830.  Recent  travellers  and  guide-books  all  fail  to  notice  it 
however. 

Three  other  obelisks  were  afterward  erected  by  this  same  architect.  One,  in  the  Piazza  del  Popolo, 
is  of  about  the  same  height  as  that  in  front  of  St.  Peter’s  ;  while  another  in  the  Piazza  di  San  Giovanni 
in  Laterano  is  the  largest  known,  being  still  one  hundred  and  five  feet  and  seven  inches  high  after 
having  three  feet  cut  or  broken  off.  Both  of  these,  however,  are  in  several  pieces,  and  the  chief 
care  was  to  adapt  the  fragments  so  as  not  to  mar  the  stability  or  the  symmetry  of  the  shafts.  The 
third,  now  behind  the  Church  of  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  is  still  monolithic,  but  much  injured  and  of 
smaller  dimensions,  being  only  forty-eight  feet  four  inches  in  height ;  its  pedestal,  fortunately,  being 
seventeen  feet  high,  lends  additional  majesty  to  its  presence. 

During  the  remaining  four  years  of  the  life  of  Pope  Sixtus,  Fontana  was  held  in  great  esteem, 
and  as  pontifical  architect  added  materially  to  the  adornment  of  the  city;  but  soon  after  the  accession 
of  Clement  VIII  he  succumbed  to  the  machinations  of  jealous  enemies,  and  was  degraded  from  his 
position.  The  Count  of  Miranda,  Viceroy  of  Naples,  sent  for  him,  however,  and  made  him  architect 
and  first  engineer  of  the  kingdom.  There  he  passed  the  remainder  of  his  life,  loaded  with  riches 
and  honors,  and  left  a  number  of  handsome  edifices  to  bear  witness  to  his  skill  and  taste.  Perhaps 
none  of  his  works,  though,  will  be  more  lasting  than  the  graceful  shaft  that  rears  its  tall  form  in  the 
centre  of  the  Piazza  di  San  Pietro,  an  austere  chronicle  of  silent  ages.  A  fresco  painting  on  one 
of  the  walls  of  the  Vatican  library  recalls  the  great  feat  which  lifted  him  into  sudden  prominence,  and, 
which,  more  surely  perhaps  than  any  structure  in  Rome  or  Naples,  will  command  a  tribute  of  praise 
for  the  young  architect  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

The  Vatican  obelisk  has  no  Egyptian  hieroglyphs  ;  it  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  determine  with 
certainty  by  whom  it  was  originally  erected.  It  is  assumed  to  be  identical  with  one  which  Pliny 
describes  as  having  been  erected  by  a  certain  King  Nuncoreus  in  gratitude  for  the  recovery  of  his 
sight.  As  Nuncoreus  does  not  appear  on  the  lists  of  Egyptian  monarchs,  Bunsen  thinks  that  Pliny 
meant  Meneptah  I  (xix  dynasty,  B.  C.  1322-1302,  Lepsius).  The  Emperor  Caius  Caligula  removed  it 
from  Egypt  to  Rome  about  A.  D.  40,  and  Claudius  erected  it  on  the  Spina  of  the  so-called  Circus  of 
Nero,  where  it  is  believed  to  have  remained  until  removed  by  Fontana  to  its  present  site. 


ll‘Vie  des  Architectes.” 


CHAPTER  VI. 


RECORD  OF  ALL  EGYPTIAN  OBELISKS. 

THE  REMAINING  OBELISK  AT  LUXOR.1 

THE  temple  at  Luxor  (Thebes,  eastern  bank  of  the  Nile)  was  founded  by  Amenhotep  III,  xviii 
dynasty,  who  built  its  sanctuary,  colonnade,  and  propylon.  To  this  original  structure  Ramses 
II,  xix  dynasty,  added  a  great  court  and  a  gigantic  propylon,  in  front  of  which  he  erected  two 
colossal  statues  of  himself  and  the  two  most  splendid  obelisks  of  his  reign.  (See  Plate  xxxix.) 

The  present  obelisk  of  Luxor  was  the  eastern  one  of  this  pair.  Its  former  companion  has 
been  removed,  and  is  to-day  the  obelisk  of  Paris.  They  were  quarried  at  Syene,  exquisitely  sculptured 
and  highly  polished.  The  dimensions  of  this  pair  are  not  the  same.2  They  have  one  peculiarity 
that  has  been  the  cause  of  much  speculation  :  the  eastern  and  western  faces  of  both  are  slightly 
curved.3  Wilkinson  believed  that  the  object  of  this  curvature  was  to  obviate  the  shadow  thrown 
by  the  sun.  Donaldson  observes  that  while  in  each  obelisk  one  face  is  convex,  the  opposite  face 
of  the  same  obelisk  is  concave,  and  from  this  concludes  that  the  peculiarity  is  a  defect  of  quarrying, 
and  not  designed  for  effect. 

The  pyramidions  of  the  remaining  obelisk  at  Luxor  and  its  mate  in  Paris  are  imperfect  and 
unsculptured.  The  form  is  not  that  of  a  true  pyramid,  but  rather  that  of  a  pyramid  with  curved 
faces,  which  is  the  earliest  form.  This  has  led  to  the  conjecture  that  the  Luxor  obelisks  were 
originally  surmounted  by  metal  caps.  Certainly  the  dedicatory  sculptures  on  them  are  on  the  sides 
of  the  shaft,  instead  of  on  the  faces  of  the  pyramidion,  and  this  tends  to  confirm  the  conjecture.  The 
artistic  perfection  of  the  sculptures  on  these  obelisks  is  remarkable.  The  hieroglyphs  are  deeply  cut. 
The  surfaces  within  the  characters  of  the  central  column  are  highly  polished,  while  in  the  lateral 
columns  they  are  rough.  Champollion  states  that  the  name  of  Ramses  II  is  found  only  in  the 
central  column  on  the  western  side.  He  translates  the  cartouch  on  the  other  sides  as  Ramses 
III,  and  conjectures  that  this  monarch  completed  the  sculptures  on  the  obelisks  that  his  predecessor 
had  erected. 

-  The  question,  very  difficult  of  solution,  is  raised  by  Birch,  whether  these  differing  cartouches 
belong  to  two  monarchs,  or  to  but  one  (Ramses  II).  Rosellini,  Champollion,  and  apparently,  Birch 
maintain  that  two  kings  are  intended ;  while  Rawlinson,  Lenormant,  and  Major  Felix  conclude,  that 
only  Ramses  II  is  named.  Lenormant’s  conclusion  is  based  on  the  discovery  of  two  cartouches 
on  the  bottom  of  the  Paris  obelisk  when  it  was  lowered,  which  Champollion  had  believed  to  be 

‘“Descrip,  de  T  £gypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  iii.,  pi.  3,  6,  n.  Lenormant,  “Mus6e,”  pi.  xv,  No.  15.  Champollion,  “Mon.,” 
t.  iv.,  pi.  cccxx,  cccxxi.  [View  of  the  obelisk  in  Ebers  (Philae),  p.  311.] 

s  The  obelisk  now  in  Paris  being  shorter  than  its  mate,  was  mounted  at  Luxor  on  a  taller  pedestal  and  placed  farther 
from  the  pylon  than  the  other,  so  that  to  the  advancing  spectator  the  difference  in  height  would  not  be  apparent. 

5  See  Chapter  III. 


I  20 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


the  name  of  Ramses  III.  He  argued  that  if  the  name  of  Ramses  II  appeared  on  the  obelisk 
at  all  it  was  erected  by  him,  and  the  cartouches  on  the  bottom  could  not  have  been  cut  since  it 
was  erected.  No  full  translation  of  the  inscriptions  on  the  Luxor  obelisk  has  been  made. 

A  portion  of  the  inscription,  which  has  been  translated  by  Birch,  extols  the  monarch  as  a  builder  : 
he  is  “  the  constructor  of  memorials  ”  ;  “  he  has  arranged  the  temple  of  Amen,  placing  his  name 
forever  in  Thebes  ”  ;  “  he  has  set  up  two  obelisks  of  granite,  placing  them  for  millions  of  years 
at  the  divine  residence  of  Rameses,  whom  Amen  loves,  at  the  house  of  Amen-Ra.” 

Plate  xxxix  conveys  some  idea  of  the  grandeur  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  edifices  and  the 
labor  that  was  expended  on  them.  The  two  massive  walls  that  formed  the  pylons  of  the  temple 
were  covered  with  sculptures  and  hieroglyphs,  which  may  still  be  traced  and  partly  deciphered.  Just 
without  the  gate,  between  them,  are  two  colossal  statues  of  the  king,  that  are  buried  nearly  up  to 
the  shoulders  in  the  sands  that  have  been  accumulating  in  many  centuries.  Some  idea  may  be  formed 
of  the  size  of  these  statues  by  comparison  with  the  height  of  the  obelisk  near  by,  which  rises  about 
sixty  feet  above  the  ground,  and  is  buried  over  twenty  feet  below. 

It  is  inexplicable  that  the  French  archaeologists  residing  in  Egypt  should  have  been  so  earnest  and 
persistent  in  their  efforts  to  prevent  the  removal  of  the  New  York  obelisk  from  Alexandria,  when  their 
countrymen  had  set  the  example  of  modern  times  in  the  wanton  destruction  of  the  only  remaining 
group  of  pylon,  statues,  and  obelisks  as  they  had  been  originally  placed  by  their  builders.  Before 
opposing  and  condemning  the  removal  of  the  New  York  obelisk  from  Alexandria,  where  it  did  not 
belong,  and  where  it  was  doomed  to  speedy  destruction  had  it  remained,  it  would  have  been 
reasonable  to  expect  from  the  French  servants  of  the  Khedive  an  effort  to  restore  the  Paris  obelisk 
to  its  ancient  home  and  surroundings.  It  was  an  open  secret  in  Egypt  that  the  French  and  German 
archaeologists  in  charge  of  the  Boulak  Museum  ceased  their  opposition  to  the  Khedive’s  gift  of  the 
Alexandria  obelisk  to  the  United  States,  only  in  the  expressed  belief  that  the  foreign  residents  of 
Alexandria  would  resist  by  force  any  attempt  to  remove  it.  They  are  in  a  measure  responsible 
for  the  difficulties  that  attended  the  removal  of  the  New  York  obelisk,  that  came  so  near  culminating 
in  bloodshed. 

OBELISKS  OF  THOTHMES  I.  AT  KARNAK. 


The  great  temple  of  Karnak  (Thebes,  eastern  bank)  is  pronounced  by  Fergusson 1  to  be  “  the 
noblest  effort  of  architectural  magnificence  ever  produced  by  the  hand  of  man.”  Within  its  walls  are 
the  most  ancient  obelisks  now  standing  in  Egypt,  excepting  only  that  at  Heliopolis.  They  are  the 
monuments  of  Thothmes  I,  and  of  his  daughter,  Queen  Hatasou. 

Entering  at  the  portal  of  the  first  gigantic  propylon  (three  hundred  and  seventy  feet  long ;  one 
side,  or  pylon,  still  standing,  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  feet  high)  of  Ramses  II,  xix  dynasty,  the 
visitor  traverses  the  vast  open  court  (two  hundred  and  seventy-five  by  three  hundred  and  twenty-nine 
feet)  of  the  same  monarch.  Then  passing  the  ruins  of  the  second  great  propylon,  even  more  massive 
than  the  first,  of  Seti  I,  the  founder  of  the  xix  dynasty,  he  enters  the  grand  hypostyle  hall,  or 
Hall  of  Columns,2  also  the  work  of  Seti  I,  and,  according  to  Fergusson,  “the  greatest  of  man’s 
architectural  works.”  Then,  by  the  third  propylon,  that  of  Amenhotep  III,  xviii  dynasty, — with  each 
massive,  portal  going  still  farther  back  into  antiquity, — he  enters  a  long  narrow  corridor  extending 
across  the  whole  width  of  the  temple.  Here,  in  front  of  the  fourth  propylon,  the  work  of  Thothmes 
I  [xviii,  dynasty,  B.  C.  1646 — 1625,  Lepsius],  are  the  two  obelisks  of  this  monarch  ;  one  fallen  and 
broken,  the  other  still  standing  in  its  original  position ;  it  is  the  left  one  on  Plate  xl.3  They 
originally  stood  in  front  of  the  entire  temple.4 


1  Fergusson,  “Hist,  of  Architecture,”  vol.  i,  p.  106. 

2  1  he  central  columns  are  sixty-six  feet  high,  eleven  and  one  half  feet  in  diameter. 

Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  iii,  pi.  24.  Lepsius,  “  Denkmaler,”  vol.  v,  pi.  6.  Rosellini, 

4  Savary,  in  Egypt,  1777  (letters,  etc.,  published  in  1785),  says  three  obelisks  standing  at  Karnak. 


“Mon.  Storici,”  pi.  xxx. 


THE  REMAINING  OBELISK  AND  RUINS  OF  TEMPLE  AT  LUXOR. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


1 2 1 


The  pyramidion  of  the  standing  obelisk  is  apparently  not  sculptured.  The  absence  of  the 
dedicatory  sculptures  on  the  shaft  indicates  that  it  was  sculptured  originally.  The  authorities  on  Egypt 
contradict  each  other  and  themselves  so  frequently  on  this  and  other  important  matters  that  there  is 
little  satisfaction  in  quoting  them.* 1 

Three  columns  of  hieroglyphs  are  cut  upon  each  face  of  the  shaft2;  the  central  columns  bearing 
the  name  and  titles  of  Thothmes  I ;  the  lateral  columns,  according  to  Birch,  bear  the  names  of  Ramses 
V  or  VI.  Mariette  (“  Monuments,”  pp.  168,  169)  states  that  the  side  columns  show  rather  confused 
cartouches,  among  which  are  the  names  of  Ramses  VI  engraved  over  those  of  Ramses  IV,  and  adds 
that  upon  the  many  fragments  of  the  fallen  obelisk  may  be  seen  the  name  of  Thothmes  III.  The 
inscriptions  record  that  the  king  “  has  built  his  enduring  edifice  to  his  father,  Amen-Ra,”  and  “  has 
erected  two  obelisks  before  the  propylon”  (Rosellini,  vol.  iii,  p.  114). 

OBELISKS  OF  HATASOU,  KARNAK. 

Still  farther  within  the  great  temple  of  Karnak  than  are  the  obelisks  of  Thothmes  I — that  is, 
beyond  the  fourth  propylon  and  within  the  narrow  court  of  the  Osiride  figures — are  the  obelisks  of 
Queen  Hatasou.3  In  this  court,  erected  by  Thothmes  I,  his  daughter,  Hatasou  [xviii  dynasty,  B.  C. 
1625-1591,  Lepsius],  set  up  the  loftiest  monoliths  now  remaining  in  Egypt,  and,  according  to  Mariette, 
the  loftiest  of  all  obelisks  now  existing.  Of  these,  one  is  fallen  ;  the  other  (the  northern),  still  standing 
where  it  was  placed  by  the  queen,  is  the  right  one  on  Plate  xl. 

Ebers,  Verninac  St.  Maur,  and  others  bestow  their  highest  praises  upon  this  obelisk.  Its  fine 
proportions,  its  exquisite  polish,  the  singularly  delicate  and  perfect  execution  of  its  sculptures,  the  unique 
richness  of  its  ornamentation,  together  with  its  gigantic  size,  make  it,  in  the  opinion  of  Rosellini,  one 
of  the  most  admirable  examples  of  Egyptian  work.  A  marked  entasis,  or  convexity,  of  at  least  one 
of  its  faces  was  observed  by  Verninac  St.  Maur. 

The  pyramidion  is  unusually  acute,  and  is  sculptured  with  vignettes  representing,  according  to 
Rosellini,  Hatasou,  in  male  attire,  kneeling  before  Amen-Ra,  with  her  face  turned  from  the  deity,  who 
has  his  hand  on  her.  The  summit  of  the  pyramidion  above  the  vignettes,  it  appears  from  the 
inscriptions,  was  originally  covered  with  “  pure  gold.” 

A  single  column  of  admirably  cut  hieroglyphs  appears  upon  the  centre  of  each  face  of  the  shaft, 
bearing  the  name  of  Hatasou.  Thothmes  III,  her  brother  and  successor,  has  attempted  to  erase  her 
cartouch  wherever  it  appeared,  and  to  substitute  for  it  his  own,  whether  impelled,  as  some  say,  by 
hatred  of  his  too  domineering  sister,  or  by  the  desire  to  appropriate  these  splendid  shafts  to  himself ; 
but  the  attempt  was  not  successful,  and  the  feminine  grammatical  forms  still  look  through  the  names 

of  Thothmes,  to  claim  the  obelisks  for  their  original  founder. 

Upon  either  side  of  the  hieroglyphic  column  of  each  face  are  eight  vignettes,  beginning  just 
below  the  pyramidion,  and  descending  more  than  half  the  distance  from  the  summit  to  the  base,  thus 
enclosing  the  greater  part  of  the  inscription  with  a  richly  sculptured  bordering,  of  which  this  is  the 
only  example.  All  the  vignettes  which  border  one  side  of  the  hieroglyphic  column  represent  Amen-Ra; 
opposite  the  deity,  on  the  other  side  of  the  column,  stands  a  sovereign  presenting  offerings.  The 
sovereign  represented  is,  according  to  Rosellini,  sometimes  Hatasou  herself,  sometimes  Thothmes  I, 
her  father,  and  sometimes  her  husband  or  her  son.  Upon  the  broken  obelisk  are  exactly  the  same 
designs  as  those  of  the  standing  shaft.  These  sculptures  have  been  cut  and  polished  with  the 

1  The  plates  of  Lepsius  and  Rosellini  show  the  pyramidion  plain.  So  also  do  photographs  of  more  recent  dates.  There  is  not 
even  a  line  to  be  discovered  on  the  pyramidion  in  the  photographs. 

1  According  to  Cooper,  p.  28,  there  is  but  one  column  on  each  face  ;  and  so,  indeed,  it  is  represented  in  the  “  Descr.  de 
1’  Egypte,”  pi.  24.  But  the  plates  of  Lepsius  and  Rosellini  show  three  columns  ;  so  do  the  photographs. 

*  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte  Antiq.,”  vol.  iii,  pi.  21,  24,  27,  30.  Lepsius,  “  Denkmaler,”  vol.  v,  pi.  22-24.  Rosellini,  “  Mon.  Storici,” 

pi.  xxxi-xxxiv.  Lenormant,  “Musee,”  pi.  xvii,  No.  10. 


122 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks . 

greatest  care ;  those  at  the  summit  and  farthest  from  the  eye  of  the  spectator  just  as  carefully  as 

those  lowest  on  the  shaft  (“  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte  ”). 

Our  wonder  at  the  elaborate  decoration  and  perfect  execution  of  these  gigantic  monuments  is 
increased  when  we  learn  from  their  inscriptions  that  they  were  detached  from  the  Assouan  quarries, 
removed  to  Karnak,  sculptured,  polished,  and  erected  in  the  short  space  of  seven  months.  The 

engraven  record  shows  that  “  the  queen,  the  pure  gold  of  monarchs,  had  dedicated  to  her  father, 
Amen  of  Thebes,  two  obelisks  of  syenite  taken  from  the  quarries  of  the  south.  Their  upper  parts 
were  ornamented  with  pure  gold  taken  from  the  chiefs  of  all  nations.  Her  Majesty  gave  two  gilded 
obelisks  to  her  father,  Amen,  that  her  name  should  remain  permanent,  always  and  forever  in  this 
temple.  Each  was  made  of  a  single  piece  of  syenite  (Machet  stone),  without  joint  or  rivet.  Her 
Majesty  began  the  work  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  her  reign,  the  first  day  of  the  month  Mechir,  of 

the  sixteenth  year,  and  finished  it  on  the  last  day  of  the  month  Mesore,  making  seven  months  from 

its  commencement  in  the  quarry”  (Birch,  “Egypt,”  p.  85).1 

The  low,  square  pedestal  of  the  standing  obelisk  is  figured  in  Plate  24  of  Lepsius,  “Denkmaler”; 
its  sides  are  covered  with  hieroglyphs. 

SMALL  OBELISKS,  OR  STELAE,  OF  THOTHMES  III,  KARNAK.2 

Far  within  the  great  temple  of  Karnak,  and  in  front  of  its  ancient  granite  sanctuary,  are  two 
small  shafts  of  syenite,  called  by  Bonomi  and  Cooper  decorative  obelisks,  but  by  Jollois  and  Rawlinson 
called  stelae.  Rawlinson  compares  them  to  the  “Jachin  and  Boaz”  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon.  Strictly 
speaking,  they  are  rather  stelae  than  obelisks  ;  they  appear  never  to  have  had  pyramidions  ;  in  their 
decorations  they  differ  greatly  from  other  monoliths.  Jollois  conjectures  that  statues  were  once  placed 
upon  them. 

On  their  north  and  south  sides  are  sculptured  three  lotus-flowers  (the  emblem  of  immortality, 
Heeren)  in  very  high  relief ;  the  sculptures  still  show  the  traces  of  the  brilliant  colors  with  which  they 
were  formerly  painted.  Above  the  flowers  is  the  royal  cartouch.  The  east  and  west  sides  bear 
three  bass-reliefs,  representing  the  king  received  by  the  deity.  Above  these  reliefs  are  a  few  hiero¬ 
glyphs.  According  to  Cooper,  these  inscriptions  show  the  name  of  Thothmes  III,  though  the  shafts 
may  have  been  erected  by  his  sister  Hatasou. 

HELIOPOLIS  OBELISK. 

At  the  former  site  of  the  temple  of  Heliopolis  stands  the  most  ancient  of  all  the  great  obelisks 
now  existing,  and  the  most  ancient  of  all  known  obelisks  (see  Plate  xli),  if  we  except  the  small  ones 
found  by  Lepsius  at  Memphis,  and  by  Mariette  and  Villiers  Stuart  at  Drah  Abou’l  Neggah.  In  front 
of  the  temple,  as  restored  by  Amenhat  I,  xii  dynasty,  and  his  son,  Usortesen  I,3  and  on  either  side 
of  the  great  propylon,  a  pair  of  obelisks  (the  “Jachin  and  Boaz”  of  the  Egyptian  sanctuary,  Rawlin- 
son’s  “  Egypt,”  ii,  148),  was  erected  by  Usortesen.4  Of  this  pair,  the  present  obelisk  of  Heliopolis  alone 

’The  following  remarks  upon  this  obelisk  are  by  Mariette  (“Monuments,”  p.  170)  :  “The  precision  with  which  it  is  put 
on  its  base  is  remarkable  ;  it  is  in  the  very  axis  of  the  temple,  and  this  precision,  considering  its  vast  weight,  shows  the  use 
of  mechanical  appliances  the  most  exact  and  powerful.  The  inscriptions  show  that  the  summit  of  the  obelisk  was  covered 
with  ‘pure  g°ld.’  Unless  this  means  an  apex  overlaid  with  a  casing  of  gilded  copper  (like  the  obelisk  now  at  Heliopolis), 
this  possibly  refers  to  the  sphere  (of  gold  ?)  which  is  represented  on  certain  bass-reliefs  at  Sakkarah.  The  obelisk  itself  was, 
no  doubt,  gilded  from  top  to  bottom  :  in  examining  closely,  one  may  see  that  the  hieroglyphs  were  carefully  polished,  and 
that  the  plain  surface  of  the  monument  was  left  comparatively  rugged,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  plain  surface, 
having  a  coating  of  white  stucco  (the  like  of  which  may  be  seen  in  so  many  Egyptian  monuments),  alone  received  this  costly 
embellishment  of  gilding,  the  hieroglyphics  themselves  retaining  the  original  color  and  actual  surface  of  the  granite.” 

a  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte  Antiq.,”  vol.  iii,  pi.  30,  Nos.  7,  8.  Lenormant,  “  Musee,”  pi.  xvii,  No.  10.  Rawlinson,  “  Egypt,”  vol.  i, 
p.  229.  Ebers,  “  Caire  Philae,”  pp.  193,  272. 

3  Various  spellings:  Usortesen,  Baedeker  ;  Usortesen,  Rawlinson  “  Egypt”  ;  Us/rtasen,  Mariette j  Sesortasen,  Rawlinson  (“Anc. 
Hist.”)  ;  Asertisen,  Parker ;  Osirtasen,  Murray. 

’Usortesen  I,  B.  C.  2371-25,  Lepsius  ;  2433-2400,  Brugsch.  The  xii  dynasty,  B.  C.  2380,  Lepsius;  2466,  Brugsch  ;  2781, 
Bunsen  ;  3064,  Mariette  ;  2080,  Wilkinson. 


ARTOTYPE 


HARROUN  &  GlERSTADT.  N.  X. 


THE  OBELISKS  AT  KARNAK 


P4at6  XL 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks .  123 

remains,  still  occupying,  after  the  lapse  of  thousands  of  years,  the  pedestal  on  which  it  was  originally 
placed. 

Both  obelisks  were  originally  adorned  with  copper  caps.  St.  Ephrem  Syrus  (born  about  A.  D. 
308,  died  about378),  in  his  commentary  on  Isaiah,  xxiii  chapter,  says :  “The  cap  which  is  on  the  top  of 
each  of  these  columns  is  of  copper,  and  of  the  weight  of  one  hundred  pounds,  and  even  more.”  1  The 
copper  caps  are  also  mentioned  by  Denys  of  Telmahre,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  who  wrote  about  A.  D. 
840.2  Ebn-Khordadbeh,  an  Arabian  writer  of  the  third  century  of  the  Hegira,  about  the  ninth  century 
of  our  era,  is  quoted  as  follows  :  “  At  Ain-Schems  (Heliopolis)  are  two  columns,  the  remains  of  the 
greater  number  which  were  formerly  here  ;  at  the  top  of  each  is  a  collar  of  copper.  From  one  of  the 
two  the  water  descends  to  about  midway  of  the  column,  which  is  discolored.”  3 

Mohammed  ben-Abd-alrahin,  who  visited  Egypt  in  A.  D.  1118,  writes  as  follows:  “Upon  its 
summit  is  a  covering  of  copper,  as  beautiful  as  gold,  on  which  is  represented  the  figure  of  a  man 
seated  in  a  chair  and  looking  to  the  east.”  4 *  Abd-el-Lateef s  describes  the  obelisk  thus  :  “  In  this  town 
are  the  two  famous  obelisks  called  Pharaoh’s  Needles  ;  they  have  a  square  base,  each  side  of  which 
is  ten  cubits  long,  and  about  as  much  in  height,  fixed  on  a  solid  foundation  in  the  earth.  On  this 
base  stands  a  quadrangular  column  of  pyramidal  form,  one  hundred  cubits  high,  which  has  a  side  of 
about  five  cubits  at  the  base,  and  terminates  in  a  point.  The  top  is  covered  with  a  kind  of  copper 
cap  of  a  funnel  shape,  which  descends  to  the  distance  of  three  cubits  from  the  summit ;  this  copper 
through  the  rain  and  length  of  time  has  grown  rusty  and  assumed  a  green  color,  part  of  which  has 
run  down  along  the  shaft  of  the  obelisk.  I  saw  one  of  these  obelisks  that  had  fallen  down  and 
broken  in  two,  owing  to  the  enormity  of  the  weight.  The  copper  which  had  covered  its  head  was 
taken  away.  Around  these  obelisks  were  many  others  too  numerous  to  count,  which  are  not  more 
than  a  third,  or  a  half  as  high  as  the  large  ones.”  6 

The  mate  of  the  present  obelisk  of  Heliopolis  fell  prostrate  about  A.  D.  1160,  and  has  now  entirely 
disappeared.7  Its  fragments,  says  Ebers,  perhaps  lie  deep  buried  in  the  vicinity  of  the  standing  shaft. 
The  foundations  of  this  missing  obelisk  have  lately  been  discovered  (Murray’s  “Egypt,”  1875.)8 

The  obelisk  still  standing  is  of  the  red  syenite  of  Assouan.9  Its  pyramidion  is  rough  and  was 
originally  covered  with  a  cap  of  metal. 

The  pedestal  and  bottom  of  the  shaft  cannot  now  be  seen,  being  buried  under  successive  deposits 
of  the  mud  of  the  Nile.  The  pedestal  is  of  sandstone,  according  to  Lenormant,  and  consists  of  two 
broad  steps  or  slabs,  each  about  two  feet  high,  and  which  seem  to  have  formed  part  of  the  paved 
dromos.10 

1  Works  of  St.  Ephrem,  vol.  ii,  p.  144.  Quoted  in  De  Sacy’s  “  Abd-el-Lateef,”  p.  226.  2  De  Sacy’s  “Abd-el-Lateef,”  p.  503. 

3  De  Sacy’s  “  Abd-el-Lateef,”  p.  225 — .  This  story  of  water  flowing  down  the  obelisk  is  repeated  by  another  Arabian  writer, 

and  has  been  re-told  in  our  own  times  by  M.  de  Hammer,  who  visited  Heliopolis  in  1801  (De  Sacy). 

4  De  Sacy’s  “Abd-el-Lateef,”  p.  225 — .  Kodhai,  quoted  by  Donaldson,  in  Parker,  p.  29,  says  the  same.  De  Sacy  adds  a  note  that 
this  figure  of  a  man  was  engraven  on  the  cap,  and  not — as  had  been  said  in  an  earlier  and  erroneous  translation  of  the  passage — a 

statue  erected  above  the  cap. 

6  “  Abd-el-Lateef.”  Relation  de  1’  Egypte.  Traduit  par  Silvestre  de  Sacy.  Paris,  1810. — Abd-el-Lateef,  an  Arabian  physician 
from  Bagdad,  who  visited  Egypt  about  A.  D.  1190  (Mariette),  and  wrote  in  1201  (De  Sacy). 

*  A  highly  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  amount  of  metal  upon  these  obelisks  is  given  by  Mohammed  ben-Ibrahim  Djezi  (or 
Djezeri)  in  his  chronicle  of  the  year  656  of  the  Hegira,  corresponding  to  the  year  1258  of  our  era  (De  Sacy)  :  speaking  of  the 
obelisk  then  fallen,  he  says  that  “  within  it  [dans  son  interieur,  De  Sacy’s  translation]  were  found  nearly  twenty  thousand  pounds 
[two  hundred  quintaux]  of  copper,  and  from  its  top  the  same  was  taken  to  the  value  of  ten  thousand  dinars.”  De  Sacy’s  “Abd- 
el-Lateef,”  p.  225 — . 

7  It  fell  in  1160,  and  not  in  1260  as  MaKrizi  states  (Ebers).  For  the  error  of  Djezi  (Djezeri)  and  MaKrizi  as  to  this 
date,  see  De  Sacy’s  Abd-el-Lateef,  p.  225 — .  Abd-el-Lateef  saw  the  obelisk  lying  prostrate.  The  notes  of  Langles  upon  this 
point  in  Norden  should  be  corrected,  says  De  Sacy. 

8  Lenormant  says  it  was  overthrown  by  the  Arabs  in  their  search  for  hidden  treasure. 

“  For  plates  or  descriptions  of  this  obelisk  see  :  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  333.  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  i, 
p.  229.  Lepsius,  “  Denkmaler,”  pt.  ii,  pi.  118.  “Thomas  Shaw’s  Travels,”  Oxford,  1738,  (plate,)  p.  412.  Lenormant, 
“  Musee,”  pi.  xxix  No.  3. 

10 1  cannot  find  the  record  of  the  excavation  and  measurement  of  this  pedestal. 


124  Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

A  single  column  of  boldly  and  simply  cut  hieroglyphics,  repeated  on  each  of  the  four  faces  of  the 
shaft,  bears  the  name  of  Usortesen  I,  “  the  loved  of  the  gods  of  Heliopolis.”  The  inscription  on  two 
sides  is  rendered  illegible  by  the  cells  of  bees  filling  up  the  deeply  engraved  hieroglyphics. 

Dean  Stanley  thus  described  his  impressions  at  the  sight  of  this  venerable  shaft  :  “In  these 
gardens  [gardens  which  partly  cover  the  site  of  Heliopolis]  are  two  vestiges  of  the  great  Temple  of 
the  Sun,  the  high-priest  of  which  was  the  father-in-law  of  Joseph,  and,  in  later  times,  the  teacher  of 
Moses. — One  is  a  pool,  overhung  with  willows  and  aquatic  vegetation — the  spring  of  the  Sun. — The 
other,  now  rising  wild  amidst  garden  shrubs,  the  solitary  obelisk,  which  stood  in  front  of  the  temple, 
then  in  company  with  another,  whose  base  alone  now  remains.  It  has  stood  for  nearly  4,000  years. 
It  was  raised  about  a  century  before  the  coming  of  Joseph  :  it  has  looked  down  on  his  marriage  with 
Asenath  :  it  has  seen  the  growth  of  Moses  :  it  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus  :  Plato  sat  under  its  shadow : 
of  all  the  obelisks  which  sprang  up  around  it,  it  alone  has  kept  its  first  position.  One  by  one  it  has 
seen  its  sons  and  brothers  depart  to  great  destinies  elsewhere.  This  remarkable  pillar  (for  so  it  looks 
from  a  distance)  is  now  almost  the  only  landmark  of  the  great  seat  of  the  wisdom  of  Egypt.” 

LARGE  OBELISK  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.1 

The  obelisk  now  standing  in  the  Atmeidan,  the  ancient  hippodrome  at  Constantinople,  bears  the 
cartouch  of  Thothmes  III,  but  where  he  erected  it  is  in  doubt;  Brugsch  states  at  Heliopolis,  Birch  at 
Karnak,  and  Cooper  at  Thebes,  and  between  these  three  opinions  the  weight  of  authorities  is  about 
equally  divided.  There  is  some  excuse  for  the  belief  that  it  was  originally  the  companion  of  the  one 
in  Rome  now  known  as  the  Lateran  obelisk.  Birch  speaks  of  Bonomi’s  intention,  apparently  never 
carried  out,  to  write  a  paper  on  its  history.  He  attributes  it  to  the  earliest  period  of  the  reign  of 
Thothmes  III.  It  is  imperfect,  the  lower  end  having  been  removed  or  broken  off.  Ancient  Byzantine 
writers,  quoted  by  Zoega,  affirm  that  the  lower  part  was  standing  in  the  Strategium  in  their  time. 

It  is  believed  that  this  obelisk  was  removed  during  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great  (A.  D. 
306-337)  from  its  original  site  to  Alexandria.  The  Emperor  Julian  (A.  D.  360-363),  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  the  citizens  of  Alexandria,  makes  mention  of  a  monolith  then  lying  at  that  city,  and  which  Constantine 
had  transported  thither  with  the  intention  of  removing  it  to  Constantinople;  he  urges  the  citizens  to 
forward  the  shaft  to  the  place  of  its  destination,  and  offers,  in  return  for  such  a  service,  to  present 
them  with  his  own  colossal  statue.  According  to  Zoega,  the  ship  which  conveyed  the  obelisk  from 
Alexandria  was  driven  ashore  in  a  storm  at  some  point  near  Athens,  whence  the  shaft  was  at  last 
brought  to  Constantinople  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius  (A.  D.  379-395). 

The  inscriptions  on  the  pedestal  show  that  the  obelisk  was  set  up  in  its  present  position  by 
Theodosius  about  A.  D.  399,  Cooper;  A.  D.  390,  Zoega. 

Birch  conjectures  that  this  obelisk  at  first  stood  in  the  fifth  quarter  of  the  city.  Having  been 
overthrown  by  an  earthquake  and  broken,  it  was  removed  to  and  re-erected  where  it  now  stands. 
Balt’s  translation  of  Petrus  Gyllius’  “Antiquities  of  Constantinople”  (first  edition,  published  in  i562) 
describes  the  obelisk  as  “  supported  by  four  square,  broad  pieces  of  brass,  each  one  and  one  half  feet 
high.  From  the  ground  there  rise  two  steps  against  the  pedestal,  the  lowermost  of  which  is  one  foot 
high  and  of  the  same  breadth.  The  upper  step  is  two  feet  high,  and  projects  four  feet  and  four  fingers’ 
breadth  beyond  the  pedestal.  The  steps  are  not  laid  within  the  pedestal,  but  are  joined  to  it  outside, 
as  appears  by  the  cement.  Upon  the  steps  stands  the  pedestal,  which  is  every  way  twelve  feet  broad, 
four  feet  eight  digits  in  height,  and  projects  beyond  the  base  one  and  one  half  feet.  Somewhat  above 
one  foot  higher  it  is  more  contracted,  and  does  not  project  beyond  its  base  ;  for  from  the  top  of  the 

1  P.  Gyllius,  “  De  Constantinopoleos  Topographia,”  bk.  i,  c.  xi.  Kircher,  “GLdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  305.  C.  Niebuhr,  “Reise- 
beschreibung  nach  Arabien,”  vol.  i,  pi.  iv.  “  Transac.  Roy.  Soc.  Lit.,”  second  series,  vol.  ii,  p.  218.  Lepsius,  “  Denkmaler,” 
vol.  v,  pi.  60. 


THE  OBELISK  AT  HELIOPOLIS  AND  POMPEY’S  PILLAR  AT  ALEXANDRIA 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


125 


pedestal  there  is  a  flushing  on  the  four  sides  of  the  obelisk,  which  is  cut  out  of  the  same  stone  of 
which  the  pedestal  is  made,  and  is  one  foot  thirteen  digits  high.  The  corners  of  the  top  of  the 
pedestal  are  worn  and  defaced,  but  are  repaired  by  four  stones  of  Thebaic  porphyry  marble,  each 
of  them  one  and  one  half  feet  high  ;  for  all  the  fluted  part  of  the  pedestal  that  lies  between  these 
four  angular  stones,  together  with  the  upper  part  of  it,  supports  the  base,  which  is  seven  feet  thirteen 
digits  high,  and  projects  one  and  one  half  feet  beyond  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  of  the  obelisk,  to  the 
breadth  of  nine  feet  nine  digits.  It  is  also  carved  on  all  sides,  as  is  also  the  pedestal,  which  is 
carved  with  curious  statues  cut  in  basso-rilievo.”  John  Sanderson,  who  was  at  Constantinople  in 
1 594,  has  the  following:  “In  the  midst  of  the  Atmeidan  is  to  be  seen,  raised  upon  four  dice  of 
fine  metal,  a  very  fair  pyramid  of  mingled  stone,  all  of  one  piece,  fifty  cubits  high,  carved  with 
heroical  letters  ;  resembling  the  Agulia  of  Rome.  Its  foot  is  double  ;  in  the  first  foundation,  which  is 
two  cubits  high,  is  carved  the  manner  and  the  way  which  they  took  to  set  up  this  pyramid  or 
obelisk ;  in  the  second  foundation,  which  is  four  cubits  high,  are  carved  the  tyrants  conquered  by 
Theodosius,  who  bring  presents  and  render  obedience  on  every  side  to  the  said  emperor,  he  also 
being  carved  in  the  midst.” 

The  faces  of  the  pyramidion  are  sculptured  with  square  vignettes,  in  which  is  Thothmes  III 
standing  before  the  divinity  Amen.  On  each  face  of  the  shaft,  just  below  the  pyramidion,  is  another 
square  vignette,  in  which  Thothmes  is  kneeling  before  the  enthroned  god  and  presenting  offerings. 

A  single  column  of  large  and  finely  chiselled  hieroglyphs  appears  on  each  face  of  the  obelisk. 
The  inscriptions  have  a  certain  historical  importance,  as  they  are  among  the  earliest  Egyptian  records 
which  mention  Naharana,  or  Mesopotamia.  This  country  is  here  termed  the  frontier  of  the  Egyptian 
realm  :  the  first  attack  upon  it  by  Egypt  had  taken  place  in  the  reign  of  Thothmes  I. 

The  following  is  Chabas’  translation  of  the  inscriptions  in  two  vignettes  and  on  the  four  sides. 


OVER  THE  KING  SITTING  DOWN. 

Amen  Lord  of  the  thrones  of  the  two  lands, 
Dwelling  (in  Thebes),  great  god, 

He  gives  all  life,  all  happiness,  all  stability. 

OVER  THE  KNEELING  PHARAOH. 

The  good  God,  Lord  of  the  earth, 

Master  of  making  things, 

The  king  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt 
Ra-men-kheper,  son  of  the  sun, 

Thothmes,  giving  all  life  like  the  sun,  for  ever. 

WEST  SIDE. 

The  heaven,  the  kingly  Horus, 

Strong  bull,  swaying  through  truth, 

The  king  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 

Ra-men  Kheper-iri-em-Ra, 

Who  has  gone  through  the  great  circuit  of 
Naharana, 

In  strength  and  victory,  at  the  head  of  his 
troops, 

Making  a  great  slaughter.  .... 

SOUTH  SIDE. 

The  heaven 
The  kingly  Horus, 

The  strong  bull  swaying  through 
Truth, 


The  Lord  of  diadems 
Enlarging  royalty, 

Like  the  sun  on  high, 

The  golden  hawk, 

Of  hallowed  diadems, 

Warlike  dominator, 

King  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 
Ra-men- Kheper-Sotep-en-Ra, 

He  made  (the  obelisk)  in 
His  monuments  to  his  father, 
Amen-Ra,  Lord  of  the  thrones  of 
The  two  lands. 

He  erected  .... 

EAST  SIDE. 

The  heaven 
The  kingly  Horus, 

Uplifting  the  white  crown, 
Beloved  by  the  sun, 

King  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 
Lord  of  diadems, 

Swaying  through  truth 
The  love  of  the  two  lands: 
Ra-men-Kheper,  son  of  the  sun, 
Lord  of  victory, 

Chastiser  of  the  whole  earth, 

Who  has  set  his  boundary 
At  the  horn  of  the  earth, 

At  the  extremities  of  Naharana1 


1  Here  the  term,  horn  of  the  earth,  refers  to  the  southern  mountains  ;  and  the  extremities  of  Naharana,  to  the  northern 
limit  of  Egypt  at  the  time. 


1 26 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


The  heavens, 

The  kingly  Horus, 

Strong  bull, 

Beloved  by  the  sun, 

The  king  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 
Ra-men-Kheper,  whom  Kheper-Ra  has  magnified, 
Nursling  of  Turn, 


NORTH  SIDE. 

Foster  child 

In  the  arms  of  Neith,  the 
Divine  mother ; 

As  a  king  ; 

He  has  conquered  all  lands. 
Protracted  (is)  his  life  ; 

Lord  of  feasts  of  thirty  years. 


SMALL  OBELISK  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE,  OR  PRIOLI  OBELISK. 


The  syenite  obelisk  now  standing,  according  to  Long,  in  the  gardens  of  the  Sultan  at  Constanti¬ 
nople,  is  so  little  known — its  inscriptions  never  having  been  published — that  it  is  impossible  to  decide 
upon  its  history,  or  properly  to  describe  it.1  Long  identifies  it  with  the  smaller  obelisk  of  Constantinople, 
mentioned  by  Peter  Gyllius,  whose  description  of  that  city  was  published  in  1632.  The  words  of  Gyllius 
are  as  follows  :  “  When  first  I  arrived  in  Constantinople  I  saw  two  obelisks  :  one  in  the  Circus  Maximus  ; 
another  in  the  Imperial  Precinct,  standing  on  the  north  side  of  the  first  hill.  It  was  of  a  square  figure, 
and  erected  near  the  houses  of  the  Grand  Seignor’s  glaziers.  A  little  time  after,  I  saw  it  lying  prostrate 
without  the  precinct,  and  found  it  to  be  thirty-five  feet  in  length.  Each  of  its  sides,  if  I  mistake  not, 
was  six  feet  broad,  and  the  whole  was  eight  yards  in  compass.  It  was  purchased  by  Antonius  Priolus, 
a  nobleman  of  Venice,  who  sent  it  thither,  and  placed  it  in  St.  Stephen’s  Market.”  Long,  however, 
states  that  it  was  never  removed  from  Constantinople. 

Cooper  concludes  from  its  dimensions  that  it  is  probably  a  monument  of  the  Middle  Empire  ; 
but  Parker  assigns  it  to  Nectanebo  I,  B.  C.  378-360,  xxx  dynasty, — one  of  the  three  independent 
dynasties  given  by  Manetho  as  interrupting  the  rule  of  the  Persian  power  in  Egypt.  Nectanebo, 
while  bravely  contending  against  these  foreign  foes,  yet  found  opportunity  for  some  additions  to  the 
buildings  at  Thebes,  and  built  a  small  temple  to  the  goddess  Hathor  at  Philae. 


OBELISKS  IN  ROME. 


SANTA  MARIA  MAGGIORE  AND  MONTE  CAVALLO. 

The  obelisks  now  standing  in  the  piazza  of  the  basilica  of  Santa  Maria  Maggiore  and  before  the 
Quirinal  Palace  in  Rome  appear  to  have  been  formerly  companions.  Both  are  without  hieroglyphical 
inscriptions,  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  means  of  determining  where  and  by  whom  they  were  originally 
erected.  Tradition  ascribes  them  to  a  king  of  the  vi  dynasty,  variously  designated  Pepi  Merira,  Papa 
Maire,  Phiops,  and  Apappus,  who  reigned,  according  to  Lepsius,  B.  C.  27 14.2  Zoega  conjectures  that 
they  were  erected  at  Heliopolis :  one  by  a  certain  Smarres,  B.  C.  io5o  ;  the  other  by  Phius  or  Phaseus, 
B.  C.  1000.  Kircher  agrees  with  Zoega  as  to  the  former  (Santa  Maria  Maggiore),  but  assigns  the 
latter  to  Apries  (Uhabra  or  Hophra),  xxvi  dynasty.  Parker  conjectures  that  the  obelisk  of  Monte  Cavallo 
was  erected  by  Psammetik  II,3  xxvi  dynasty.  All  of  which  goes  to  show  that  nothing  definite  is  known 
of  the  origin  of  these  two  obelisks. 

It  is  believed  that  they  were  removed  from  Egypt  to  Rome  during  the  reign  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius,  A.  D.  41 -54.4  They  were  subsequently  erected  before  the  mausoleum  of  Augustus,  Zoega 
thinks  by  Vespasian  or  Titus  about  A.  D.  79.  When  they  were  overthrown  is  not  known.  Some 
authorities  assert  by  Robert  Guiscard,  who  died  A.  D.  108 5,  who  is  supposed  to  have  devastated 
this  mausoleum.  They  were  long  afterward  found  in  fragments.  That  of  Santa  Maria  Maggiore 

‘Peter  Gyllius,  “  Antiq.  of  Constantinople,”  Ball’s  translation,  p.  104.  Long,  “Egyptian  Antiquities,”  vol.  i,  p.  332. 

’Kircher,  “CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  368. 

’  Parker  contradicts  himself  ;  on  his  p.  1  he  says,  “  both  perhaps  by  Popi  on  his  pi.  vi,  “  Cavallo  by  Psammetik  II  ”  ; 
also,  “  brought  by  Augustus  and  set  up  as  gnomon.” 

4  Cooper  and  Murray  state  that  Claudius  removed  these  obelisks  A.  D.  57.  Claudius  died  A.  D.  54. 


THE  CONSTANTINOPLE  OBELISK.  THE  PARIS  OBELISK. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks . 


127 


was  unearthed  during  the  pontificate  of  Sixtus  V,  in  three  pieces  and  without  its  pyramidion.  Fontana 
restored  and  placed  it  on  its  present  site  in  1587.  That  of  Monte  Cavallo  was  not  disinterred 
until  1789.  It  was  found  without  a  pyramidion  and  in  two  pieces,  and  re-erected  where  it  now  stands, 
by  order  of  Pius  VI,  in  the  same  year.  The  famous  “  Horse  Tamers  ”  discovered  in  the  baths  of 
Constantine  in  Rome  are  placed  on  either  side  of  its  pedestal. 

THE  LATERAN  OBELISK. 

The  obelisk  now  standing  in  front  of  the  basilica  of  S.  Giovanni  in  Laterno  was  the  largest  of 
all  known  obelisks.  The  sculptures  and  hieroglyphs  on  it  prove  that  it  originally  stood  at  Thebes.1 
Thothmes  III  ordered  it  to  be  made,  but  his  successor,  Thothmes  IV,  finished  and  placed  it  in  position 
thirty-five  years  afterward.  About  A.  D.  330  it  was  removed  from  Thebes1  to  Alexandria  during  the 
reign  of  Constantine  the  Great,  who  designed  transporting  it  to  Byzantium.  About  357  Constantius, 
his  son,  removed  it  to  Rome  and  caused  it  to  be  erected  in  the  Circus  Maximus.  There  is  no  record 
of  its  fall.  But  during  the  pontificate  of  Sixtus  V  it  was  found  buried  among  the  ruins  of  the  circus, 
broken  into  three  pieces.  Fontana  restored  and  placed  it  in  its  present  position  in  1 588. 

The  inscription2 *  is  engraved  on  the  four  sides.  It  bears  the  cartouches  of  Thothmes  III,  Thothmes 
IV  of  the  xviii  dynasty,  and  Ramses  II  of  the  xix,  who  restored  and  set  it  up  again.  It 
has  a  certain  chronological  interest  from  mention  of  thirty-five  years  between  Thothmes  III  and 
Thothmes  IV.  The  translation  of  those  lines  which  relate  to  the  kings  of  the  xviii  dynasty  only 
is  given.  Next  to  the  chronological  data  one  of  the  most  interesting  notices  found  in  the  inscription 
is  that  of  the  barge  of  the  god  Amen-Ra,  which  was  made  of  cedar,  cut  down  in  the  land  of 
Rutennu  or  Syria.  These  barges  each  had  different  names  and  that  of  Thothmes  III  is  mentioned  in 
the  inscription  of  Amenhat.  It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  reign  of  Thothmes  IV  Egypt  is 
mentioned  as  dominant  over  foreign  nations  and  not  undertaking  further  campaigns. 

The  text  and  a  translation  have  been  published  by  Ungarelli,  “  Interpretatio  Obeliscorum,”  fo., 
Rom.,  1842,  tab.  i;  the  text  only,  by  Zoega,  “  De  Usu  et  Origine  Obeliscorum,”  fo.,  Rom.,  1797  ; 
and  also  by  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  iii,  164.  The  latter  part,  owing  to  an  incorrect  joining  of  the 
fragments,  is  confused  and  unintelligible. 


NORTH  SIDE. 

Scene  on  the  pyramidiotf  :  Thothmes  III  adoring  Amen-Ra,  and  the  inscription, 

“  The  good  god  Ra-MEN-KHEPER  like  the  Sun.” 

“Amen,  Tum.”  4 

Thothmes  III  kneeling  to  Amen-Ra  seated  on  his  throne. 

“The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  Ra-men-kheper,  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  like  the  Sun, 

Immortal.” 

“AmeN-Ra,  Lord  of  the  seats  of  Upper  and  Lower  countries,  gives  all  life,  stability,  and  power.” 

ON  THE  OBELISK. 

Central  line  of  hieroglyphs  :  THOTHMES  IV  adoring  the  hawk  of  Har-EM-AKHU.1 

The  good  god,  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU  Lord  of  the  World,  gives  incense  that  he  may  be  made  a  giver  of  life. 

Central  line:  “The  Harmachis,  the  living  Sun,  the  strong  Bull  beloved  of  the  Sun,  Lord  of  Diadems  very 
terrible  in  all  lands,  the  Golden  Hawk  the  very  powerful,  the  Smiter  of  the  Libyans,  the  King  Ra-men-kheper, 

‘Although  the  inscriptions  repeatedly  mention  Thebes,  yet  Bonomi,  Murray,  Parker  (p.  2),  and  Cooper  (pp.  3  and  35) 
state  that  it  was  erected  at  Heliopolis.  Kircher  (“CEdipus,”  vol.  iii.  p.  162),  Zoega  (p.  591),  Rawlinson  (vol.  ii,  p.  241), 
Brugsch  (vol.  i,  p.  404),  and  Birch  (in  “Records  of  the  Past,”  vol.  iv,  p.  9)  pronounce  this  to  be  a  Theban  obelisk. 
Ammianus  Marcellinus  (bk.  xvii,  ch.  iv)  speaks  of  the  obelisk  removed  by  Constantine,  which  has  been  identified  as  the 

Lateran  obelisk,  as  “  especially  dedicated  to  the  sun  god  and  set  up  within  the  precincts  of  his  magnificent  temple,”  which 

would  be  as  applicable  to  Thebes  as  to  Heliopolis. 

2  “  Records  of  the  Past,”  vol.  iv,  p.  9. 

4  Titles  of  the  god  Amen-Ra. 


3  The  apex  of  the  obelisk. 

3  Harmachis,  or  sun  in  the  horizon. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


1 28 

the  son  of  Amen-Ra,  of  his  loins,  whom  his  mother  Mut  gave  birth  to  in  Asher,  one  flesh1  with  him  who  created 
him,  the  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (III)  the  Uniter  of  Creation,  beloved  of  Amen-Ra,  Lord  of  the  thrones  of 
the  Upper  and  Lowrer  country,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun  for  ever.” 

SOUTH  SIDE. 

Pyramidion ,  upper  line :  “  The  King  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU  (Thothmes  IV),  giver  of  life,  beloved  of  Amen-Ra, 
Lord  of  the  thrones  of  the  two  countries.” 

Thothmes  III  adoring  Amen-Ra. 

“The  Son  of  the  Sun,  THOTHMES  (III),  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun  for  ever.” 

THOTHMES  III  kneeling,  offering  wine  to  Amen-Ra  seated  on  a  throne, 

“  The  King  Ra-MEN-kheper,  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (III),  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun  for  ever.” 

The  goddess  Uat2  gives  a  good  life,  Amen-Ra,  Lord  of  the  seats  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  gives  life, 
power,  and  stability. 

THOTHMES  IV  seated  on  a  throne  adoring  the  hawk  of  HARMACHIS. 

“  The  good  god  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun.” 

Amen-Ra,  King  of  the  gods,  (says)  “  Thou  has  received  life  in  thy  nostril.” 

Central  line :  “  The  Har-EM-akhu,  the  living  Sun,  the  strong  Bull,  crowned  in  Thebes,  Lord  of  diadems, 
augmenting  his  kingdom  like  the  Sun  in  heaven,  the  Hawk  of  Gold,  the  Arranger  of  diadems,  very  valiant,  the 
King  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  approved  of  the  Sun,  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (III),  has  made  his  memorial  to  his 
father,  Amen-Ra,  Lord  of  the  seats  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  countries,  has  erected  an  obelisk  to  him  at  the  gate¬ 
way  of  the  temple  before  Thebes,  setting  up  at  first  an  obelisk  in  Thebes  to  be  made  a  giver  of  life.” 

EAST  SIDE. 

Pyramidion:  Thothmes  III  taken  in  hand  by  Amen-Ra. 

“  The  good  god,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun.” 

THOTHMES  III  kneeling  and  offering  wine  to  Amen-Ra  seated  on  a  throne. 

“  The  King  Ra-MEN-kheper,  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun,  gives  water.” 

“  Amen-Ra,  King  of  the  gods,  gives  life,  stability,  and  power.” 

THOTHMES  III  standing,  offering  a  pyramidal  cake  to  the  hawk  of  HAR-EM-AKHU.3 

“  The  good  god,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  giver  of  life,  gives  a  pyramidal  cake  of  white  bread  that  he  may  become  a 
giver  of  life.” 

Central  line:  The  Har-EM-akhu,  the  living  Sun,  beloved  of  the  Sun,  having  the  tall  crown  of  the  Upper 
region,  the  Lord  of  diadems,  celebrating  the  festivals  in  Truth,  beloved  on  earth,  the  Golden  Hawk  prevailing  by 
strength,  the  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  beloved  of  the  Sun,  giving  memorials  to 
Amen  in  Thebes,  augmenting  his  memorials,  making  them  as  they  were  before  so  that  each  should  be  as  at  first ; 
never  was  the  like  done  in  former  times  for  Amen  in  the  house  of  his  fathers,  he  made  it  the  Son  of  the  Sun, 
Thothmes  (III),  Ruler  of  An,4  giver  of  life. 


WEST  SIDE. 

Pyramidion  :  Thothmes  III  received  by  Amen-Ra. 

“Amen,  Tum.” 

“  The  good  god,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun,  immortal.” 

THOTHMES  III  kneeling  to  Amen-Ra  seated  on  a  throne. 

“  The  King  Ra-MEN-kheper,  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (III),  like  the  Sun,  immortal,  gives  wine.” 

“  Uat  6  gives  life,  duration,  and  health.” 

“  AMEN-Ra,  Lord  of  the  seats  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  countries,  King  of  the  gods,  Ruler  of  An.” 
Thothmes  IV  offering  flowers  to  the  hawk  of  Har-em-akhu. 

“  The  good  god,  the  Lord  of  doing  things,  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun,  gives  incense  that 
he  may  be  made  giver  of  life.” 

Central  line:  “The  HAR-EM-AKHU,  the  living  Sun,  the  strong  Bull,  crowned  by  Truth,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  who 
adores  the  splendor  of  Amen  in  Thebes,  Amen  welcomes  him  in  his  heart  dilates  at  the  memorials  of 

his  Son,  increasing  his  kingdom  as  he  wishes,  he  gives  stability  and  cycles  to  his  Lord,  making  millions  of  festivals 
of  thirty  years,  the  Son  of  the  Sun,  THOTHMES  (III),  uniting  existence  (giver  of  life). 

NORTH  SIDE. 

Right  line:  “The  good  god,  the  Image  of  diadems,  establishing  the  kingdom  like  Tum,  powerful  in  force, 

‘Or  “substance.”  2  Buto,  goddess  of  Northern  Egypt. 

Harniachis,  or  the  sun  in  the  horizon,  a  title  translated  by  Hermapion,  “  Apollo.” 

Heliopolis.  6  The  goddess  Buto. 


1.  LATERAN 


MONTE  CITORIO 


3  PIAZZA  DELLA  MINERVA 


4.  PIAZZA  NAVONA 


OBELISKS  IN  ROME. 


X  LI  1 1 


1 29 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

expeller  of  the  Nine  bow  foreigners,  the  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  Ra-MEN-KHEPER,  taking  by  his 
strength  like  the  Lord  of  Thebes,  very  glorious  like  Mentu  1  whom  Amen  has  given  strength  against  all 
countries;  the  lands  came  in  numbers,  the  fear  of  him  was  in  their  bellies,  the  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (IV) 

Diadem  of  Diadems,  beloved  of  Amen-Ra,  the  Bull  of  his  mother.” 

Left  side:  “The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  beloved  of  the  gods,  adorer  of  the  circle  of  the 

gods,  welcomed  by  the  Sun  in  the  barge,  and  by  Tum  in  the  ark,  the  Lord  of  the  Upper  and  Lower 

countries,  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU,  who  has  ornamented  Thebes  for  ever,  making  memorials  in  Thebes,  the  circle  of 
gods  of  the  house  of  Amen  delight  at  what  he  has  done,  the  Son  of  the  god  Tum,  of  his  loins,  produced  on  his 
throne,  Ti-iothmes  (IV),  Diadem  of  Diadems.” 


SOUTH  SIDE. 

Right  line:  “The  Son  of  the  Sun,  TPIOTHMES  (IV),  Diadem  of  Diadems,  set  it  up  in  Thebes,  he  capped  it 
with  gold,  its  beauty  illuminates  Thebes ;  sculptured  in  the  name  of  his  father,  the  good  god  Ra-MEN-KHEPER 
(Thothmes  III),  the  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  Lord  of  the  two  countries,  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU 
(Thothmes  IV),  did  it  wishing  that  the  name  of  his  father  should  remain  fixed  in  the  house  of  Amen.  The  Son 
of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (IV),  giver  of  life,  did  it.” 

Left  line :  “  The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  the  Lord  of  doing  things,  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU,  made 
by  the  Sun,  beloved  of  Amen.  His  Majesty  ordered  that  a  very  great  obelisk  should  be  completed  which  had  been 
brought  by  his  father  Ra-MEN-KHEPER  (Thothmes  III),  after  His  Majesty  died.  This  obelisk  remained  thirty-five 
years  and  upwards  in  its  place  in  the  hands  of  the  workmen  at  the  southern  quarters  of  Thebes.  My  father 
ordered  it  should  be  set  up.  I  his  son  seconded  him.” 

EAST  SIDE. 

Right  line :  “  Ra-MEN-KHEPEU  (Thothmes  IV)  multiplying  memorials  in  Thebes  of  gold,  lapis  lazuli,  and 
jewelry,  and  the  great  barge  on  the  river  (named)  Amen-USER-TA,  hewn  out  of  cedar  wood  which  His  Majesty 
cut  down  in  the  land  of  Ruten,3  inlaid  with  gold  throughout,  and  all  the  decorations  renewed,  to  receive  the 
beauty  of  his  father  Amen-Ra  (when)  he  is  conducted  along  the  river.  The  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (IV), 
Diadem  of  Diadems,  did  it.” 

Left  line :  “  The  good  god,  the  powerful  blade,  the  Prince  taking  captive  by  his  power,  who  strikes  terror 
into  the  Mena,3  whose  roarings  are  in  the  Anu.4  His  father  Amen  brought  him  up,  making  his  rule  extended, 
the  Chiefs  of  all  countries  are  attentive  to  the  spirits  of  His  Majesty,  to  the  words  of  his  mouth,  the  acts  of  his 
hands,  all  that  has  been  ordered  has  been  done.  The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country  Ra-MEN-KHEPERU, 
whose  name  is  established  in  Thebes,  giver  of  life.” 


WEST  SIDE. 

Right  line:  “The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  country,  the  Lord  of  the  upper  and  lower  world,  Ra-MEN- 
KHEPERU  son  ....  it  making  peaceful  years,  Lord  of  the  gods,  who  knew  how  to  frame  his 
plans  and  bring  them  to  a  good  end,  who  subdued  the  Nine  bow  foreigners  under  his  sandals,  the  King  of  the 
Upper  and  Lower  country  ....  watched  to  beautify  the  monuments,  the  King  himself  gave 
directions  for  the  work,  like  him  who  is  Southern  Rampart, 6  he  set  it  up,  it  remained  for  a  while,  his  heart 
wished  to  create  it,  the  Son  of  the  Sun,  Thothmes  (IV),  Diadem  of  Diadems.” 

Left  line:  “The  King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  countries,  Ra-MEN-kheperu  (Thothmes  IV),  approved  of 
AMEN,  dwelling  amongst  the  Chiefs,  born  in  ...  him  than  every  king,  rejoicing  at  seeing  the 

beauty  of  his  greatness :  his  heart  desired  to  place  it.  He  gave  him  the  North  and  South  submissive  to  his 
spirits,  he  made  his  monuments  to  his  father  Amen-Ra,  he  set  up  a  great  obelisk  to  him  at  the  upper  gate  of 
Thebes  facing  Western  Thebes.  The  Son  of  the  Sun  whom  he  loves  (Thothmes  IV),  Diadem  of  Diadems,  giver 
of  life,  did  it.” 

At  the  base  is  a  scene,  Ra  seated. 

“Amen-Ra,  Hor  ;  Lord  of  heaven.” 

“  Ra-USER-MA,  approved  of  the  Sun,  Rameses  (II),  Beloved  of  Amen,  giver  of  life  like  the  Sun.” 

The  winged  disk  Hut,  Ra  again. 

“  Amen-Ra,  lord  of  the  seats  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  countries,  Har-EM-AKHU,  great  god,  Lord  of  the 
heaven.” 

“  The  King  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  Lord  of  the  two  countries,  Ra-USER-MA,  approved  of  the  Sun, 
Rameses  (II),  beloved  of  Amen.” 


1  A  form  of  Ra  or  the  Sun  ;  an  Egyptian  Mars. 

‘Title  of  the  god  Ptah  or  Vulcan,  the  eponymous  deity  of  Memphis. 


3  Syria. 

4  Libyans. 


Asiatic  shepherds. 


130 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


PIAZZA  DEL  POPOLO,  OR  FLAMINIAN  OBELISK. 

Bonomi  considers  this  obelisk  to  be  that  which  Pliny 1  mentions  as  the  work  of  Sesostris  ;  Kircher 
identifies  it  with  that  which  Pliny  ascribes  to  Semenpserteus  ;  and  Zoega  calls  it  an  obelisk  of  Ramses.2 
From  the  sculptures  and  inscriptions  it  appears  to  have  been  erected  at  Heliopolis  by  Seti  I  (xix 
dynasty,  B.  C.  1439-1388,  Lepsius).  Augustus  caused  it  to  be  removed  to  Rome  about  B.  C.  20  and 
re-erected  in  the  Circus  Maximus.  The  next  record  of  this  obelisk  is  that  it  was  prostrate  during 
the  reign  of  Valentian,  A.  D.  364-375.  In  the  pontificate  of  Sixtus  V  it  was  found  in  three  pieces, 
removed  to  its  present  site,  restored,  and  re-erected  by  Fontana  A.  D.  1589. 

Deep  holes  in  the  upper  part,  similar  to  those  in  the  Lateran  obelisk,  are  supposed  by  Bonomi 
to  have  been  the  work  of  the  Roman  engineer  to  facilitate  the  work  of  erecting  it. 

The  first  attempt  to  decipher  the  ancient  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  in  “  modern  ”  times  was  made 
by  an  Egypto- Grecian  priest,  named  Hermapion,  in  the  fourth  century  after  Christ.  Ammianus 
Marcellinus3  has  preserved  to  us  the  professed  translation  of  Hermapion,  which  is  believed  to  have 
been  of  the  characters  engraved  on  this  obelisk,  although  some  authorities  regard  it  as  relating  to 
obelisks  generally,  and  others  as  relating  to  the  Luxor,  and  others  to  the  Lateran  obelisks.  Hermapion’s 
translation  has  been  sneered  at  by  more  modern  Egyptologists  as  a  shrewd  effort  on  his  part  to 
please  his  masters  and  gain  notoriety  by  professing  a  knowledge  he  was  not  possessed  of.  But  an 
impartial  judge  may  find  it  as  satisfactory  as  the  professed  translations  of  his  severest  critics. 

Hermapion’s  translation  is  as  follows  : 

Whom  Helios  loves,  to  whom  the  gods  have  given 
long  life, 

The  Lord  of  the  world,  Rhamestes  of  eternal  life. 
Helios,  the  great  god,  the  Lord  of  the  heaven, 

I  have  given  to  thee  life  free  from  sorrow, 
Apollo  the  mighty,  the  Lord  of  the  diadem,  the 
incomparable, 

To  whom  the  Lord  of  Egypt  has  erected  statues 
in  this  royal  town, 

And  has  adorned  the  city  of  Helios, 

And  Helios  himself,  the  Lord  of  the  heavens. 

He  has  completed  his  noble  work, 

The  son  of  Helios,  the  ever  living  king. 

Helios,  the  Lord  of  the  heavens  : 

To  King  Rhamestes  have  I  given  might  and 
power  ; 

Whom  Apollo  loves,  the  Lord  of  the  times, 
Whom  Hephaestus  the  father  of  the  gods  has 
chosen  through  Ares, 

The  noble  king ;  the  son  of  Helios,  by  Helios 
beloved. 

The  great  god  of  the  city  of  Helios, 

The  heavenly,  Apollo  the  mighty,  the  son  of 
Heron,  (?) 

Whom  Helios  loves,  whom  the  gods  honor, 

Who  rules  the  whole  earth,  whom  Helios  chose, 
The  king  mighty  through  Ares,  whom  Ammon 
loves ; 

And  the  bright  burning  king  for  ever. 


1  “  Nat.  His.,”  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14. 

2  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  213.  Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Obelise.,”  tab.  ii.  G.  Tomlinson  in  “Trans.  Roy.  Soc.  Lit.,”  second 
series,  vol.  i,  p.  176.  Parker,  pi.  v. 

5  Bk.  xvii,  ch.  iv. 


This  says  Helios  to  King  Rhamestes; 

We  have  given  to  thee  all  the  world  to  reign 
over  with  joy, 

Thee  whom  Helios  loves  and  Apollo: 

The  strong,  truth-loving  son  of  Heron, 

Born  of  the  gods,  the  founder  of  the  world 
Whom  Helios  has  chosen,  strong  in  war,  King 
Rhamestes, 

To  whom  the  whole  earth  is  subdued 
With  strength  and  courage : 

King  Rhamestes  of  eternal  life. 

Apollo  the  strong,  he  who  stands  upon  truth, 

The  Lord  of  the  diadem,  who  possesses  Egypt  in 

gLry. 

Who  has  adorned  the  city  of  the  sun, 

And  founded  the  rest  of  the  world, 

And  has  greatly  honored  the  gods  established  in 
the  city  of  Helios. 

Whom  Helios  loves. 

Apollo  the  mighty,  the  blazing  son  of  Helios, 
Whom  Helios  has  chosen,  and  Ares  the  valiant 
has  favored  ; 

Whose  good  things  last  forever,  whom  Ammon 
loves ; 

Who  fills  the  temple  of  the  Phoenix  with  good 
things, 

To  whom  the  gods  have  given  length  of  life  ; 
Apollo  the  mighty,  the  son  of  Heron, 

To  Rhamestes  the  king  of  the  world, 

Who  has  protected  Egypt  by  conquering  foreign¬ 
ers  ; 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks .  1 3  1 

The  Rev.  G.  Tomlinson’s  translation  is  as  follows  : 


EAST  SIDE. 

Centre  Column. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  beloved  of  justice, 

King  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice,  approved  of  the 
sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

He  erected  edifices  like  the  stars  of  heaven, 

He  has  made  his  deeds  to  resound  above  the 
heaven, 

Scattering  the  rays  of  the  sun,  rejoicing  over  them 
in  his  house  of  millions  of  years. 

In  the  ....  year  of  His  Majesty, 

He  has  made  good  this  edifice  of  his  father,  whom 
he  loved, 

Giving  stability  to  his  name  in  the  abode  of  the 
sun. 

He  who  has  done  this  is  the  son  of  the  sun, 
Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

The  beloved  of  Turn,  the  Lord  of  Heliopolis, 
giving  life  for  ever. 

Left-hand  Column. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  beloved  of  justice, 
The  resplendent  Horus, 

The  director  of  the  years,  the  great  one  of  victo¬ 
ries, 

The  king,  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  has  adorned 

Heliopolis  with  great  edifices,  honoring  the  gods 

By  (placing)  their  statues  in  the  great  temple. 

He,  the  Lord  of  the  world, 

Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  for  ever. 

Right-hand  Column. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful, 

The  beloved  of  the  sun,  the  Ra, 

The  offspring  of  the  gods,  the  subjugator  of  the 
world, 

The  king,  the  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 
Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

Who  gives  joy  to  the  region  of  Heliopolis, 

When  it  beholds  the  radiance  of  the  solar  moun¬ 
tain. 

He  who  does  this  is  the  Lord  of  the  world, 

The  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  like  the  sun. 

NORTH  SIDE. 

Centre. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful, 

Sanctified  by  truth, 

Lord  of  diadems,  Lord  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 
Mouth  of  the  world,  possessor  (?)  of  Egypt, 


The  resplendent  Horus,  the  Osiris  (?),  the  divine 
priest  of  Totanen, 

The  king,  Pharaoh,  the  establisher  of  justice, 
Who  renders  illustrious  the  everlasting  edifices  of 
Heliopolis, 

By  foundations  (fit)  for  the  support  of  the  heaven, 
Who  has  established,  honored,  and  adorned  the 
temple  of  the  sun, 

And  of  the  rest  of  the  gods, 

Which  have  been  sanctified  by  him,  the  son  of 
the  sun, 

Menephtha-Sethai  the  beloved  of  the  spirits  of 
Heliopolis, 

Eternal  like  the  sun. 

Left. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  son  of  Set, 

The  resplendent  Horus, 

The  director  of  the  years,  the  great  one  of  vic¬ 
tories, 

The  king,  Pharaoh,  the  guardian  of  justice, 
Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

Who  fills  the  temple  of  the  phoenix  with  splendid 
objects, 

The  Lord  of  the  world,  Pharaoh,  the  guardian  of 
justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  the  son  of  the  sun, 
Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  forever. 

Right. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful  the  beloved  of  the  sun, 
The  Ra,  begotten  of  the  gods, 

The  subjugator  of  the  world, 

The  king,  Pharaoh,  approved  of  the  sun, 

Son  of  the  sun,  Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

Who  magnifies  his  name  in  every  region 
By  the  greatness  of  his  victories, 

The  Lord  of  the  world, 

Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  like  the  sun. 

SOUTH  SIDE. 

Centre. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful, 

The  piercer  of  foreign  countries  by  his  victories  ; 
The  Lord  of  diadems,  Lord  of  upper  and  lower 
Egypt, 

The  establisher  of  everlasting  edifices ; 

The  resplendent  Horus, 

Making  his  sanctuary  in  the  sun  who  loves  him  ; 
The  king,  Pharaoh,  establisher  of  justice, 

The  adorner  of  Heliopolis, 

Who  makes  libations  to  the  sun, 

And  the  rest  of  the  Lords  of  the  heavenly  world, 
Who  gives  delight  by  his  rejoicings  and  by  his 
eyes. 


132 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


He  does  it,  the  son  of  the  sun,  Menephtha- 
Sethai, 

Beloved  of  Horus,  the  Lord  of  the  two  worlds. 

Left. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  beloved  of  justice, 
Lord  of  the  panegyries. 

Like  his  father  Ptah-Totanen  ;  the  king, 

Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice,  approved  of  the  sun, 
Son  of  the  sun,  Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

Begotten  and  educated  by  the  gods, 

Builder  of  their  temples,  Lord  of  the  world  ; 
Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice,  approved  of  the  sun, 
son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  like  the  sun. 

Right. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  son  of  Ptah  To- 
tanen, 

Lord  of  diadems,  Lord  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 
Possessor  of  Egypt,  chastiser  of  foreign  countries, 
The  King,  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  who  causes  rejoicing  in 
Heliopolis 

By  displaying  his  royal  attributes, 

Lord  of  the  world,  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 
Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  giving  life  forever. 

WEST  SIDE. 

Centre. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful, 

The  beloved  of  the  sun  and  of  justice, 

Lord  of  diadems,  Lord  of  upper  and  lower 

Egypt. 

Source  of  foreign  countries,  piercer  of  the  Shep¬ 
herds, 

The  resplendent  Horus, 


Beloved  of  the  sun,  whose  name  is  magnified  ; 
The  king,  Pharaoh,  establisher  of  justice, 

Who  fills  Heliopolis  with  obelisks, 

To  illustrate  with  (their)  rays  the  temple  of  the 
sun  ; 

Who,  like  the  phoenix, 

Fills  with  good  things  the  great  temple  of  the 
gods, 

Inundating  (?)  it  with  rejoicings. 

He  does  it,  who  is  the  son  of  the  sun, 
Menephtha-Sethai,  beloved  of  the  rest  of  the 
gods 

Who  inhabit  the  great  temple  giving  life. 

Left. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  beloved  of  the  sun, 
Lord  of  panegyries  like  his  father  Ptah-Totanen, 
The  king,  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice, 

Approved  of  the  sun,  son  of  the  sun,  Amen-Mai 
Rameses, 

Lord  of  diadems,  possessor  of  Egypt, 

Chastiser  of  foreign  countries,  Lord  of  the  world ; 
Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice,  approved  of  the 
sun,  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  son  of  Totanen,  giving  life. 

Right. 

The  Horus,  the  powerful,  the  son  of  Turn, 

The  Ra,  offspring  of  the  gods,  subjugator  of  the 
world  ; 

The  king,  Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice  approved 
of  the  sun, 

The  son  of  the  sun,  Amen-Mai  Rameses, 

The  resplendent  Horus,  the  director  of  years, 

The  great  one  of  victories,  the  Lord  of  the 
world, 

Pharaoh,  guardian  of  justice,  approved  of  the  sun, 
the  son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-Mai  Rameses,  the  son  of  Totanen,  eternal. 


The  hieroglyphs  on  the  central  columns  are  deeper  and  better  cut  than  those  of  the  lateral 
columns,  and  the  surfaces  within  them  were  carefully  polished,  while  those  of  the  lateral  columns 
were  apparently  left  rough. 

The  dedicatory  sculptures  on  the  north,  south,  and  west  faces  of  the  pyramidion  represent  Seti 
I,  those  of  the  east  face,  Ramses  II,  both  in  the  form  of  a  sphinx  presenting  offerings  to  the 
gods.  At  the  summit  of  the  shaft,  just  below  the  pyramidion,  and  also  at  the  bottom,  are  other 
dedicatory  sculptures  in  which  the  kings  are  in  human  form.  The  central  columns  of  hieroglyphs  on 
the  north,  south,  and  west  sides  refer  to  Seti  I,  all  others  to  Ramses  II. 

Bonomi  has  noticed  that  the  figure  of  the  god  Set  has  been  cut  out  by  Ramses  from  the 
cartouch  of  his  father,  and  the  figure  of  Ra  engraved  in  its  place.  The  obliteration,  however,  could 
not  be  made  perfect,  and  the  long,  erect  ears  of  Set  still  appear  above  the  hawk’s  head  of  Ra. 
This  substitution  by  Ramses  may  indicate  a  change  of  religious  opinion.1 

1  The  fortunes  of  Set  (Typhon)  in  Egyptian  worship  were  extremely  varied.  Under  the  early  monarchy,  he  appears  to 
have  had  a  party  in  his  favor.  The  Hyksos  made  him  the  sole  Egyptian  deity.  At  their  expulsion,  he  naturally  fell  back 
into  an  inferior  position  in  the  national  esteem.  But  at  the  rise  of  the  xix  dynasty,  he  was  again  made  prominent. 
Ramses  I,  in  naming  his  son  Seti,  seems  to  have  placed  the  prince  under  Set’s  protection.  At  a  later  period,  though  it 
is  not  known  exactly  when,  the  worship  of  this  deity  entirely  ceased,  and  his  name  was  erased  from  all  monuments.  Cf. 
Rawlinson’s  “  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  390  ;  vol.  ii,  347-350. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


133 


MONTE  CITORIO  OBELISK. 

Zoega  considered  this  obelisk  to  have  been  originally  the  most  beautiful  of  all,  and  the  best 
specimen  of  Egyptian  workmanship.  Evidences  of  these  qualities  still  exist  in  spite  of  the  grievous 
injuries  it  has  sustained.  Bonomi  identifies  it  with  the  obelisk  that  Pliny  ascribes  to  Semenpsterteus, 
although  it  is  generally  identified  with  the  one  he  ascribes  to  Sesostris.  Birch  ascribes  it  to 
Psammetik  II  (xxvi  dynasty,  B.  C.  596-591,  Lepsius).1  The  inscription  by  Pius  VI  attributes  it  to 
Sesostris.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  originally  stood  at  Heliopolis  whence  it  was  removed  to  Rome 
during  the  reign  of  Augustus,  about  B.  C.  20,  and  re-erected  in  the  Campus  Martius.  Zoega 
believed  that  it  was  overthrown  during  the  invasion  of  Robert  Guiscard,  A.  D.  1084,  and  discovered 
near  the  church  of  S.  Lorenzo  in  Lucina  during  the  pontificate  of  Julius  II,  A.  D.  1 503— 1 5 13. 

Cooper,  however,  states  that  it  was  not  discovered  until  1748.  It  was  found  in  five-  pieces,  the 

lower  part  so  much  damaged  that  it  could  not  be  used  in  the  restoration.  The  pieces  were 
removed  to  the  present  site  by  Antinori  in  1792,  by  order  of  Pius  VI.  Fragments  of  a  column 
of  Antoninus  Pius  were  used  to  repair  the  shaft,  and  for  a  pedestal. 

The  dedicatory  sculptures  on  the  pyramidion  represent  the  king  as  a  sphinx  adoring  Ra  and  Turn. 
One  peculiarity  of  this  obelisk  is  that  it  had  two  instead  of  one  or  three  columns  of  hieroglyphs 

upon  each  face.  All  but  three  of  the  eight  columns  have  been  effaced,  and  those  that  remain  are 

very  much  injured. 

Pliny  thus  describes  the  use  to  which  this  obelisk  was  put  by  the  Romans 2 : 

The  one  that  has  been  erected  in  the  Campus  Martius  has  been  applied  to  a  singular  purpose  by  the  late 

Emperor  Augustus:  that  of  marking  the  shadows  projected  by  the  sun,  and  so  measuring  the  length  of  the  days 
and  nights.  With  this  object,  a  stone  pavement  was  laid,  the  extreme  length  of  which  corresponded  exactly  with  the 
length  of  the  shadow  thrown  by  the  obelisk  at  the  sixth  hour  [noon]  on  the  day  of  the  winter  solstice.  After  this 
period,  the  shadow  would  go  on,  day  by  day,  gradually  decreasing,  and  then  again  would  as  gradually  increase,  corre¬ 
spondingly  with  certain  lines  of  brass  that  were  inserted  in  the  stone;  a  device  well  deserving  to  be  known,  and 
due  to  the  ingenuity  of  Facundus  Novus,3  the  mathematician.  Upon  the  apex  of  the  obelisk  he  placed  a  gilded 
ball,  in  order  that  the  shadow  of  the  summit  might  be  condensed  and  agglomerated,  and  so  prevent  the  shadow 
of  the  apex  itself  from  running  to  a  fine  point  of  enormous  extent;  the  plan  being  first  suggested  to  him,  it  is 
said,  by  the  shadow  that  is  projected  by  the  human  head.  For  nearly  the  last  thirty  years,  however,  the  obser¬ 
vations  derived  from  this  dial  have  been  found  not  to  agree  :  whether  it  is  that  the  sun  itself  has  changed  its 

course  in  consequence  of  some  derangement  of  the  heavenly  system ;  or  whether  that  the  whole  earth  has  been 
in  some  degree  displaced  from  its  centre, — a  thing  that,  I  have  heard  say,  has  been  remarked  in  other  places  as 
well;  or  whether  that  some  earthquake,  confined  to  this  city  only,  has  wrenched  the  dial  from  its  original  position; 
or  whether  it  is  that  in  consequence  of  the  inundations  of  the  Tiber,  the  foundations  of  the  mass  have  subsided, 
in  spite  of  the  general  assertion  that  they  are  sunk  as  deep  into  the  earth  as  the  obelisk  erected  upon  them  is 
high. 

OBELISK  IN  THE  PIAZZA  DELLA  MINERVA. 

The  small  obelisk  of  the  Piazza  della  Minerva4  is,  according  to  Rawlinson  and  Parker,  the  work 
of  Uhabra  (Apries,  Hophra,  xxvi  dynasty,  B.  C.  591-570,  Lepsius)  ;  Cooper,  however,  ascribes  it  to 
Psammetik  II,  also  of  the  xxvi  dynasty.  It  was  probably  originally  erected  at  Sais,  the  favored  city 
of  this  dynasty;  being  dedicated  to  “Turn,  who  dwells  in  Sal's,”  and  to  Neith,  the  local  deity. 

The  pyramidion  is  without  sculptures.  Each  face  bears  a  single  column  of  hieroglyphs.  The 
characters  are  more  narrow  and  slender  than  is  usual,  and  show  imperfections  of  execution  (Zoega). 
The  sides  are  more  inclined  than  those  of  other  obelisks. 

It  is  one  of  two  obelisks  (the  other  now  stands  before  the  Pantheon)  which  were  removed  from 

1  Cooper,  p.  20,  states  that  this  obelisk  was  erected  by  Seti  Menepthah  I,  and  on  p.  96  by  Psammetik  I.  See  Bandini, 
“Dell’  obelisco  di  Cesaro  Augusto,”  Roma,  1750.  Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Ob.,’’  tab.  iii.  Zoega  (plates  at  end).  Parker,  pi.  ii. 

“Pliny,  “Nat.  Hist.,”  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  15.  Translation  of  Bostock  and  Riley. 

3  The  name  of  Facundus  Novus  is  omitted  in  Le  Maire’s  edition. 

*  Kircher,  “Ob.  Minerveus,”  Ungarelli,  “Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  iii.  Parker,  pi.  iii. 


134 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

Egypt  by  the  Romans,  and  used  as  a  pair  to  adorn  the  temple  of  Isis  and  Serapis  in  the  Campus 
Martius  ;  perhaps  in  the  time  of  Domitian,  when  the  worship  of  the  Egyptian  deities  became  more 
prevalent  at  Rome. 

It  was  found,  together  with  that  now  before  the  Pantheon,  in  i665,  among  the  ruins  of  this 
temple,  in  a  spot  now  occupied  by  the  convent  of  the  Minerva.  At  the  direction  of  Alexander 
VII,  it  was  erected  on  its  present  site  by  Bernini,  in  1667.  The  architect  placed  it,  most  inappro¬ 
priately,  upon  the  back  of  a  marble  elephant. 

PANTHEON,  OR  MAHUTEAN  OBELISK. 

The  small  obelisk  now  standing  in  front  of  the  celebrated  Pantheon  is  a  monument  of  Ramses 
II,1  xix  dynasty,  B.  C.  1388-1322,  Lepsius.  It  was  originally  erected,  according  to  Birch,  before  one 
of  the  portals  of  the  Temple  of  the  Sun  at  Heliopolis. 

Nothing  but  the  cartouches  of  Ramses  II  .appear  on  the  pyramidion.  Zoega  says  that  the  pyra- 
midion  was  left  obtuse,  and  is  in  form  rather  like  a  long  cone  than  a  pyramid.  A  single  column 
of  hieroglyphs  is  engraved  upon  each  of  the  four  sides  of  the  shaft,  bearing  the  titles  of  this 
monarch,  and  recording  that  he  has  “  made  many  gifts  to  the  house  of  the  Sun.”  According  to 
Cooper,  the  name  of  Psammetik  II  is  also  cut  upon  the  shaft. 

It  is  one  of  two  obelisks  (the  other  is  that  of  the  Piazza  della  Minerva)  which,  on  their  removal 
to  Rome,  were  erected  before  the  temple  of  Isis  and  Serapis  in  the  Campus  Martius ;  perhaps  in 
the  time  of  Domitian,  A.  D.  81-96. 

It  was  found  in  i665,  together  with  that  of  the  Piazza  della  Minerva,  among  the  ruins  of  the 
above-named  temple.  The  shaft  had  been  broken 2 ;  the  lower  portion  of  unknown  length,  says 
Bonomi,  is  lacking.  It  was  erected  on  its  present  site,  by  order  of  Clement  XI,  in  1711.3 

OBELISK  OF  THE  VILLA  MATTEI,  ROME. 

Another  small  obelisk  in  the  grounds  of  the  Villa  Mattei  (now  called  Villa  Celimontana),  on  the 
Coelian  Hill,  belongs  to  the  time  of  Ramses  II  (xix  dynasty,  B.  C.  1388—1322,  Lepsius).  It  is  but 
the  upper  portion  of  the  original  shaft ;  the  lower  portion,  as  at  present  erected,  being  of  modern 
workmanship.  The  place  of  its  erection  in  Egypt  is  unknown,  as  is  also  the  time  of  its  removal  to 
Rome  ;  Parker  (Descr.  of  pi.  viii)  says  it  was  removed  by  Augustus.4 

The  inscriptions,  according  to  Birch,  are  unimportant,  giving  only  the  titles  of  Ramses  II.  Cooper 
states  that  the  cartouch  of  Psammetik  II  has  been  added. 

It  was  found  among  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  temple  of  Isis.  According  to  Zoega,  it  was  formerly 
erected  in  the  gardens  of  the  Convent  of  Ara  Coeli  ;  was  presented  by  the  Roman  senate  and  people 
to  Cyriacus  Matthseius,  and  by  him  erected  in  his  gardens  on  Monte  Coelio,  in  i582.  The  ordinary 
statement,  however,  is  that  it  was  placed  in  its  present  position  by  Sixtus  V,  in  1690.  The  story  is 
told  that,  at  the  time  of  its  erection,  the  architect  directing  the  work  thoughtlessly  laid  his  hand  on  the 
pedestal  at  the  moment  that  the  shaft  was  let  fall  into  its  place  ;  there  was  no  resource  but  to  ampu¬ 
tate  the  hand,  leaving  its  crushed  fingers  beneath  the  obelisk, — where,  to  the  eye  of  Roman  imagi¬ 
nation,  they  are  still  to  be  seen. 

‘See  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  327.  Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  iii.  (No  plate  in  Parker).  Called  Mahutean  from 
the  Church  of  St.  Mahutaeus,  near  which  it  was  formerly  erected. — Zoega. 

2  Zoega  says,  “  apparently  broken  in  two  pieces,  of  which  the  lower  is  lost.”  Birch  says,  “  a  truncated  shaft,  the  lower 
part  imperfect.” 

3  According  to  Parker,  p.  8,  before  its  erection  by  Clement  XI  in  1711,  it  had  been  removed  from  the  site  of  the 
Circus  Maximus  (Rawlinson,  ii,  489,  says  both  Minerva  and  Pantheon  before  the  temple  of  Isis)  and  set  up  earlier  in  the 
Piazza  di  S.  Martino,  by  Paul  V  (1605-1621).  This  is  contradictory  to  the  date  1665  given  above.  Zoega  says  nothing 
of  this. 

*  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  322.  Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  iii.  Parker,  pi.  viii. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


135 


LA  TRINITA  DEI  MONTI,  OR  SALUSTIAN  OBELISK. 

The  obelisk  standing  opposite  the  church  of  La  Trinita  dei  Monti  is  believed  to  have  been  cut 
from  the  quarry  of  Syene  by  one  of  the  Roman  emperors.  Birch  thinks  that  it  stood  originally  in  the 
circus  of  Sallust.1 * 

The  pyramidion  is  unsculptured.  Three  columns  of  hieroglyphs  appear  on  each  of  the  four  faces; 
the  central  columns  bearing  the  name  of  Seti  I,  and  the  lateral  columns  that  of  Ramses  II.  So  little, 
however,  does  the  cutting  of  its  inscriptions  resemble  genuine  Egyptian  work,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  best  Egyptologists  that  these  hieroglyphic  columns  are  only  an  old  Roman  copy  from  the  obelisk  of 
the  Piazza  del  Popolo,  and  are  not  worth  the  attempt  to  fully  translate  them.  In  the  opinion  of  Zoega 
and  of  Birch,  its  rude  and  incomplete  characters  show  that,  though  quarried  in  Egypt,  it  was  brought 
to  Rome  uninscribed,  and  its  hieroglyphs  cut  there  Zoega  says,  about  the  time  of  Alexander  Severus, 
A.  D.  222-235.* 

Clement  XII  (1730-1740)  intended  to  erect  it  at  the  Lateran,  but  did  not  carry  out  this  intention 
(Zoega).  It  was  placed  in  its  present  position  by  the  architect  Antinori,  in  1789,  at  the  direction  of 
Pius  VI,  whose  inscription  is  seen  on  the  base. 

PIAZZA  NAVONA,  OR  PAMPHILIAN  OBELISK. 

The  obelisk  standing  in  the  Piazza  Navona,  although  cut  from  the  quarry  of  Syene,  is  not  an 
Egyptian  obelisk.  It  was  executed  by  order  of  Domitian,  A.  D.  81-96.  Rawlinson  thinks  that  it  was 
first  erected  in  Egypt.  According  to  Birch,  Domitian  built  a  Serapeum  and  Iseum  in  the  Campus 
Martius,  appointed  a  choir  of  priests  with  offerings  of  Nile  water,  and  erected  there  this  obelisk.  He 
certainly  revived  in  Rome  the  worship  of  Isis  and  Serapis,  which  had  been  introduced  under  the 
republic  and  continued  under  the  empire  but  without  meeting  with  popular  favor. 

In  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  X  this  obelisk  was  found  broken  in  six  pieces,  lying  in  the  Circus  of 
Romulus,  sometimes  called  the  Circus  of  Caracalla,  but  no  record  can  be  found,  by  the  author,  of  how 
it  came  there.  It  was  restored  and  erected  in  its  present  position  by  Bernini,  in  1 65 1 ,  by  order  of 
Innocent  X. 

The  dedicatory  sculptures  of  the  pyramidion  represent  Domitian  adoring  the  gods.  A  single 
column  of  badly  cut  and  shallow  hieroglyphs  appears  on  each  side  of  the  shaft,  in  which  Domitian 
assumes  the  titles  of  the  Egyptian  monarchs  and  records  his  fame  from  his  own  standpoint.3 

MONTE  PINCIO,  OR  BARBERINI  OBELISK. 

The  small  obelisk  of  Monte  Pincio  was  cut  in  Egypt  by  the  order  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian  (A.  D. 
118-138).4  An  oracle  had  foretold  that  the  happiness  of  this  emperor  could  be  secured  only  by  the 
sacrifice  of  whatever  was  dearest  to  him.  His  chief  favorite,  Antinoiis,  who  had  accompanied  Hadrian 
in  a  visit  to  Egypt,  conceived  that  the  sacrifice  of  his  own  life  might  avert  the  threatenings  of  fate, 
and  drowned  himself  in  the  Nile.  The  emperor,  in  grief  at  this  loss,  and  in  memory  of  this  self- 
sacrificing  affection,  built  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  near  the  spot  where  Antinoiis  had  perished,  a 
city  which  he  called  Antinoe,  or  Antinoopolis.  Here  he  raised  a  temple,  where  divine  honors  should 
be  paid  to  the  deceased  favorite. 

This  obelisk  was  erected,  according  to  Birch,  about  A.  D.  122  by  Hadrian  in  Rome,  as  he  infers 
from  the  inscription,  which  shows  that  the  ashes  of  Antinoiis  were  deposited  in  a  sepulchre  at  Rome. 

1  Parker  (p.  40)  ascribes  it  to  Seti  I  ;  (p.  2)  says  it  bears  the  name  of  Ramses  II. 

1  See  Ungarelli,  “  Int.  Obelise.,”  tab.  vi.  Zoega  (plates  at  end).  (No  plate  in  Parker)  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p. 

257- 

‘Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  iv.  Parker,  pi.  iv.  Kircher,  “  Obeliscus  Pamphilius.” 

4  See  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  p.  271.  Zoega  (plates  at  end).  Ungarelli,  “Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  vi.  Parker,  pi.  vii.  Some¬ 
times  called  the  Veranian  obelisk,  from  the  Circus  Varianus,  in  which  it  was  once  erected;  the  Barberini  obelisk,  from  Urban 
VIII  (Barberini),  in  whose  time  it  was  discovered ;  or  the  Ob.  della  Passeggiata,  from  the  promenade  on  which  it  now  stands. 


136  Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

On  the  other  hand,  Cooper  thinks  it  probable  that  the  shaft  was  one  of  a  pair  originally  placed  before 
the  temple  at  Antinoe. 

The  sculptures  on  the  north  side  of  the  summit  of  the  shaft  represent  Hadrian  standing  before 
Ra ;  the  other  sides,  Antinoiis  presenting  offerings  to  the  deities.1 

Two  columns  of  hieroglyphs  appear  on  each  face  ;  the  engraving  is  shallow  and  not  sharply  cut 
at  the  edges.  The  inscriptions  call  Hadrian  “  the  Pharaoh,  the  ever  living,  the  beloved  of  the  Nile,” 
and  mention  the  empress,  Sabina.  The  most  important  inscription,  says  Birch,  is  this:  “The  divine 
Antinoiis,  who  is  at  rest  in  this  city,  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  fields  [probably  the  Campus  Martius] 
of  the  district  of  the  powerful  lord  of  Harama  (Rome).  He  is  recognized  for  a  god  in  the  divine 
city  which  is  in  Egypt :  temples  have  been  built  to  him.” 

At  a  later  period,  the  obelisk  was  standing,  it  is  said,  in  the  Circus  Varianus,  having  been  removed 
thither,  according  to  Birch,  from  some  other  position ;  Parker  says  it  was  erected  there  by  Helio- 
gabalus  about  A.  D.  220. 

Under  the  pontificate  of  Urban  VIII  (1623-1644)  the  obelisk  was  found  near  the  Church  of  S. 
Croce  in  Gerusalemme,  on  the  site  of  the  Circus  Varianus.  It  was  broken  into  three  pieces,  and  the 
apex  was  injured.  In  1822  it  was  removed  to  its  present  position,  by  order  of  Pius  VII,  but  by  what 
architect  or  engineer  does  not  appear  from  any  record  the  author  can  find. 

ESMEADE  OBELISKS. 

Besides  the  well-known  twelve  Egyptian  obelisks  in  Rome,  there  is,  according  to  Parker 
(Descrip,  of  pi.  viii),  yet  another  obelisk,  in  the  garden  of  Mr.  Esmeade,  close  to  the  Porta  del 
Popolo,  on  the  site  of  the  Villa  of  the  Domitii,  the  burial-place  of  Nero.  Probably,  adds  Parker, 
this  obelisk  is  a  rude  imitation  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

FRAGMENTS  IN  ROME. 

In  the  time  of  Kircher  (born  1601,  died  1680)  there  were  to  be  seen,  near  the  church  of  S. 

■ 

Ignazio,  three  fragments  of  obelisks,  each  fragment  showing  two  columns  of  hieroglyphs.  One  of 
these  fragments  (length  not  given)  was  built  into  a  wall ;  another,  seven  palms  long,  had  been 
made  the  corner-stone  of  a  building ;  a  third,  six  palms  long,  was  removed  in  Kircher’s  time  to 
the  museum  which  he  founded,  and  which  is  now  contained  in  the  Collegio  Romano.  This  third 
fragment,  according  to  Birch,  is  a  portion  of  an  obelisk  of  Ramses  II,  containing  his  name  and  titles. 

A  fourth  fragment  was  to  be  seen  in  front  of  the  church  of  S.  Bartolommeo,  on  the  island 
of  the  Tiber.  On  this  spot,  according  to  Publius  Victor,  an  obelisk  was  formerly  erected  ;  it  is 
supposed,  before  a  temple  of  Esculapius.  The  whole  island  was  anciently  faced  with  walls  of  travertine, 

giving  it  the  form  of  a  ship ;  the  obelisk  was  so  placed  as  to  represent  the  mast.  From  the 

remains  of  the  foundations  of  this  shaft,  discovered  by  Bellori  in  1676,  the  monolith  is  supposed  to 
have  been  of  large  size.  The  fragment  described  by  Kircher,  and  afterward  by  Pococke,  appears 
from  the  plates  to  be  the  sculptured  summit  of  the  shaft,  immediately  below  the  pyramidion.  It  was 
long  preserved  in  the  Villa  Albani,  but  afterward  removed  to  Urbino,  and  there  erected.2 

OTHER  EGYPTIAN  OBELISKS  IN  EUROPE. 

OBELISK  OF  BENEVENTO,  ITALY. 

In  the  ancient  city  of  Benevento  is  a  small  broken  obelisk  of  syenite,  now  standing  in  the  Cathedral 

Square.  It  was  found  in  four  fragments,  the  pyramidion  and  lower  part  gone.  It  was  erected  in  its 


1  Zoega’s  plate  shows  the  apex  plain.  Cooper  (112)  says  the  apex  is  plain.  Birch  says  it  is  sculptured. 

2  Kircher,  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  pp.  379-383.  Pococke,  “  Descrip,  of  the  East,”  pi.  xcl. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks.  1 3  7 

present  position  in  1698  (Zoega).  A  fragment  of  another  obelisk  is  imbedded  in  the  wall  of  the 
episcopal  palace.1 

The  two,  according  to  Birch,  were  a  pair  originally  erected  before  the  temple  of  Isis  in  Beneventum, 
by  the  Emperor  Domitian  (A.  D.  81-96). 

A  single  column  of  hieroglyphs  was  inscribed  on  each  face  of  these  shafts,  bearing  the  cartouch  of 
Domitian.  The  inscriptions  also  mention  the  name  of  Lucilius  Lupus  as  the  founder  of  the  temple. 

BORGIAN  OR  ALBANI  OBELISK,  NAPLES. 

The  small  Borgian  obelisk,  once  in  the  Borgian  Museum  at  Velletri,  is  now  preserved  in  the 
Museo  Nazionale  at  Naples.2  It  was  found  in  1791,  in  four  pieces,  among  the  ruins  of  Prseneste, 
now  Palestrina.  The  upper  portion  of  the  shaft  is  .lacking.  A  single  column  of  hieroglyphs  appears 
on  each  of  the  four  faces.  The  characters  are  rather  rudely  and  hastily  done  (Zoega).  The  much 
injured  inscriptions  afford  little  information ;  they  bear  the  Roman  names  Tacitus,  Sextus,  and  Afri- 
canus.  According  to  Birch,  this  shaft  was  once,  in  all  probability,  the  companion  of  the  Albani 3 
obelisk,  and  the  two  were  erected  about  the  time  of  Domitian.  The  Albani  obelisk  has  disappeared. 
Cooper  thinks  it  is  at  Munich. 

OBELISKS  IN  THE  MUSEUM  AT  FLORENCE. 

Two  very  small  syenite  obelisks  are  mentioned  by  Cooper  as  now  in  the  Egyptian  Museum 
at  Florence  ;  the  smallest  examples  existing,  if  we  except  that  found  by  Lepsius.  Their  history,  he 
adds,  is  unknown.  Zoega  speaks  of  but  one  obelisk,  of  which  he  says  that  it  is  uncertain  at  what 
time,  or  from  what  place,  it  was  brought  to  Florence.  Zoega  states  that  the  pyramidion  is  plain, 
and  two  columns  of  hieroglyphs  are  inscribed  upon  each  face  of  the  shaft.4 

OBELISK  IN  THE  BOBOLI  GARDENS,  FLORENCE. 

The  small  obelisk  now  in  the  Boboli  Gardens,  Florence,  is,  according  to  Birch,  a  monument  of 
Ramses  II,  and  was  formerly  erected  at  Heliopolis.  It  was  removed  to  Rome,  and  there  set  up 
by  the  Emperor  Claudius,  Kircher,  in  the  Circus  of  Flora.  In  Kircher’s  time  (early  part  seventeenth 
century)  it  had  been  transferred  to  the  grounds  of  the  Villa  Medici,  Rome.  At  what  time  it  was 
removed  to  Florence  and  erected  in  its  present  position,  the  writer  is  unable  to  state. 

On  the  pyramidion  are  sculptured  the  name  and  prenomen  of  Ramses  II  ;  above  these  is 
engraved  a  winged  scarabseus.  A  single  column  of  hieroglyphs  is  cut  upon  each  face.  The 
inscriptions  speak  of  the  king  as  “  powerful  in  all  countries,  beloved  of  Turn  and  Ra.”  5 

THE  ALNWICK  OBELISK,  ENGLAND. 

The  small  syenite  obelisk  which,  according  to  Bonomi,  is  in  the  museum  of  Alnwick  Castle,  a  seat 
of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  is  a  monument  of  Amenhotep  (Amenophis)  II  (xviii  dynasty,  B.  C. 

1 565-1 555,  Lepsius).6  It  is  the  only  obelisk  of  this  dynasty  after  the  time  of  Thothmes  II.  Its 
original  site  is  not  known.  It  was  found  in  a  village  of  the  Thebaid  in  1838;  was  presented  by  the 
Pacha  of  Egypt  to  Lord  Prudhoe,  afterward  Duke  of  Northumberland,  and  was  removed  to  England 
in  1840. 

Its  apex  is  broken.  Immediately  under  the  pyramidion  is  a  vignette  in  which  Amenhotep  II  is 
represented  as  kneeling  and  offering  a  conical  cake  to  Num-Ra,  the  sun  of  the  lower  world  ;  especially 

1  Ungarelli,  “  Interp.  Ob.,”  tab.  v.  Champollion,  “Precis,”  p.  95.  Zoega,  p.  644. 

’Zoega,  p.  192.  Champollion,  “Precis,”  p.  98.  3  Kircher,  “Ob.  Minervews,”  p.  176. 

‘Kircher,  “  CEdipus,  vol.  iii,  p.  348.”  5  Kircher,  “  GEdipus,”  vol.  iii,  pp.  317,  325. 

‘Bonomi,  in  “Trans.  Roy.  Soc.  Lit.,"  Second  Series,  vol.  i,  p.  170.  M.  Prisse,  in  “Rev.  Arch.,”  vol.  iii,  p.  731. 

Sharpe,  “  Egypt.  Inscriptions,”  Second  Series,  pi.  69. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


worshipped  in  Elephantine.  Only  one  face  of  the  shaft  is  inscribed,  and  that  with  a  single  column  of 
hieroglyphs. 

Bonomi  remarks  upon  a  peculiarity  in  the  cutting  of  the  hieroglyphs :  viz.,  that  the  surface 
within  their  contour  is  nearly  flat, — a  style  of  cutting  which,  as  he  says,  is  elsewhere  found  only  in 
tombs  and  on  stelae,  generally  of  the  age  of  Psammetik,  xxvi  dynasty.  According  to  Birch,  the  name  of 
Amenhotep  has  been  at  some  time  obliterated ;  perhaps  under  Amenhotep  IV,  who  attempted  to 
restore  a  ruder  and  more  ancient  worship  of  the  sun.  At  a  later  period  the  monarch’s  name  was 
again  inserted ;  but,  by  error  or  by  design,  the  name  of  Amenhotep  III  was  substituted  for  that  of  the 
original  erector. 

The  following  is  the  full  translation  by  Chabas,  as  given  by  Cooper : 


VERTICAL  COLUMN. 

The  heaven, 

The  Horus,  King  of  the  two  lands,  sun  of  life, 
Strong  bull, 

Very  valiant, 

King  of  upper  and  lower  Egypt, 

Ra-aa-Kheperou  (Sun,  the  greatest  of  existences), 
Son  of  the  sun, 

Amen-hotep-hik-An  (the  peace  of  Amen,  sovereign 
of  Heliopolis), 

He  made  (the  obelisk) 


In  his  monuments  to  his  father  Num-Ra; 

Making  to  him  two  obelisks  ....  with 
the  food  of  Ra. 

He  made  it, 

The  vivifier,  for  ever. 

AT  THE  APEX  OF  THE  OBELISK. 

The  heaven, 

Homage  to  Num, 

He  gives  all  life  and  bliss, 

(To)  Amen-hotep,  the  vivifier,  for  ever. 


THE  SION  HOUSE  OBELISK,  ENGLAND. 

According  to  Birch  (“Egypt  from  the  Earliest  Times,”  p.  107),  there  is  at  Sion  House,  a  seat  of  the 
Duke  of  Northumberland,  a  small  obelisk  which  was  originally  erected  in  front  of  a  temple  of  Khnum, 
built  at  Elephantine  in  the  time  of  Thothmes  III.  No  further  particulars  can  be  learned.  It  is  not 
mentioned  by  Bonomi.  Cooper  mentions  it  only  to  say  that  it  has  not  yet  been  published.  Rawlinson 
(“  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  35o)  strangely  says  that  it  “  was  to  be  seen  at  Sion  House  until  its  demolition  in 
1875  ”  ;  presumably  referring  to  the  demolition  of  Northumberland  House. 

This  obelisk  is  probably  identical  with  the  preceding. 

THE  OBELISKS  OF  AMYRT7EUS,  BRITISH  MUSEUM.  1 

The  last  of  the  Pharaonic  obelisks,  according  to  Birch,  unless  the  Prioli  obelisk,  at  Constantinople, 
should  be  considered  later,  are  the  two  small,  broken  examples  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Excepting 
the  sandstone  shafts  of  Philae,  other  obelisks  are  of  the  red  syenite,  which  best  typified  the  creating 
light  and  heat  of  the  sun  ;  but  these  shafts  of  Amyrtseus  are,  by  exception,  of  dark  green  basalt.  The 
upper  portions  of  both  obelisks  are  missing  :  one  has  been  broken  into  two  pieces  ;  the  other,  into  four 
pieces. 

A  single  column  of  finely  cut  hieroglyphs  appears  on  the  four  faces  of  each  shaft,  bearing  the  name 
of  Amyrtseus  (Cooper  and  Parker),  a  descendant  of  a  princely  Egyptian  family,  who,  about  B.  C.  465, 
the  period  of  Artaxerxes  I,  revolted  against  the  Persian  domination  over  his  native  land.  Birch  (in 
Parker,  p.  54)  ascribes  the  obelisks  to  Nectanebo  I,  B.  C.  378-364,  and  adds  that  they  were  dedicated 
to  Thoth  (Trismegist  Hermes),  the  god  of  measures,  of  numbers,  and  of  the  sciences  and  arts,  and  were 
originally  erected  before  some  small  temple  of  that  deity  at  or  near  Memphis.  According  to  Birch,  the 
inscriptions  on  both  declare  that  the  king  is  “  beloved  of  Thoth,  the  lord  of  hieroglyphs  ”  ;  he  has  “  set 
up  an  obelisk  in  his  house  of  basalt ;  it  is  capped  with  black  metal  (iron).”  The  portion  of  the 

1  Brit.  Museum,  Nos.  523,  524.  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  v,  pis.  21,  22.  Lenormant,  “  Musee,”  pi.  xxviii,  Nos. 
4,  6.  Sharpe,  “Egypt.  Antiq.,”  p.  107.  Bp.  of  Gibraltar,  in  “Transac.  Roy.  Soc.  Lit.,”  vol.  ii,  p.  457.  Long,  “Egypt. 
Antiq.,”  vol.  i,  p.  50. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks.  139 

inscription  given  by  Cooper  is  as  follows  :  “  Amyrtaeus,  the  living,  like  Ra,  beloved  of  Thoth,  the 
great  lord  of  Eshmunayn.” 

These  obelisks  were  found  at  Cairo  :  one,  noticed  by  Pococke,  had  been  used  as  part  of  the  frame¬ 
work  of  a  window  in  the  castle  ;  the  other  was  first  remarked  by  Niebuhr,  who  found  one  of  its 
fragments  forming  part  of  the  portal  of  a  mosque,  and  the  other  fragment  used  as  a  common  doorstep. 
The  shafts  were  removed  by  the  French  to  Alexandria,  but  fell  into  the  possession  of  the  English  in 
1801,  at  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  from  Egypt. 

FRAGMENT  AT  WANSTED,  ESSEX,  ENGLAND. 

Zoega,  whose  work  was  published  in  1797,  records  that  the  fragment  of  an  obelisk  existed  at  that 
time  in  Wansted,  England.1  It  is  not  mentioned  by  Cooper,  and  no  information  respecting  it,  later 
than  that  of  Zoega,  can  be  found  at  present. 

The  fragment,  as  described  by  Zoega,  was  a  pyramidion  of  pale  syenite,  broken  from  its  shaft,  and 
probably  not  quite  complete.  Its  dimensions  were  two  and  one  half  feet  in  height,  and  nearly  three 
feet  in  width.  Upon  each  face  was  sculptured  a  vignette,  representing  an  enthroned  deity,  before 
another  figure,  presumably  a  king,  was  kneeling.  The  deities  represented  were,  according  to  Zoega, 
Osiris  and  Horus. 

The  fragment  was  brought  from  Alexandria  to  England  in  1722,  and  placed  in  the  grounds  of  Sir 
J.  T.  Long,  at  Wansted,  Essex. 

OBELISK  OF  CORFE  CASTLE,  ENGLAND. 

In  the  sacred  island  of  Philae,  beyond  the  sandstone  shafts  at  the  landing-place  (see  obelisk  of 
Philae),  there  were  anciently  in  front  of  the  temple  of  Isis  two  lions  in  stone,  crouching  as  if  to  guard 
the  approach  to  the  shrine,  and  beyond  them  two  obelisks  of  red  syenite  standing  on  either  side  of 
the  portal.  At  Philae  to-day  the  lions  are  broken  in  pieces,  and  of  the  two  obelisks  there  remains 
but  a  fragment  of  one  ;  the  other  has  been  removed  to  England  and  is  now  the  obelisk  of  Corfe 
Castle.2  It  is  a  monument  of  a  Macedonian  ruler  of  Egypt,  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II,  B.  C.  1 70-1 17. 

In  1 8 1 5  this  monolith  was  found  by  Belzoni  in  front  of  the  ancient  temple  of  Isis.  By  his  energy 

and  perseverance  against  many  obstacles  it  was  removed  from  Philae  in  1819  and  transferred,  together 

with  its  pedestal,  to  its  purchaser,  Mr.  W.  J.  Bankes,  who  transported  it  to  England  and  re-erected  it  in 
front  of  his  residence,  Kingston  Hall,  Dorset.  It  is  now,  according  to  Cooper,  in  the  possession  of 
Mr.  J.  W.  Bankes,  of  Corfe  Castle. 

From  the  plate  of  Lepsius  it  appears  that  the  pyramidion  is  broken  and  was  unsculptured.  A 
single  column  of  carefully  cut  hieroglyphs  is  cut  on  each  of  its  faces,  bearing  the  cartouches  of 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  II  and  his  wife  Cleopatra.  According  to  Birch,  the  inscriptions,  though  filled  with 

religious  phrases,  state  hardly  more  than  that  the  king  has  erected  this  obelisk  to  his  mother  Isis. 

By  a  singular  exception  to  the  usual  rule,  the  hieroglyphs  which  relate  to  the  monarch  face  in  an 
opposite  direction  from  that  of  the  hieroglyphs  which  relate  to  the  deity. 

The  pedestal  is  of  sandstone,  and  is  five  feet  nine  inches  high.  Upon  it  are  three  Greek  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  great  interest  :  the  lowest  of  these  was  cut  in  the  stone,  and  is  a  petition  to  the  king 
from  the  priests  of  the  temple  of  Isis,  to  be  relieved  from  certain  taxes  laid  upon  them  by  the  different 
public  officers.  The  two  inscriptions  above  this  are,  according  to  Long,  only  painted  in  red  letters ; 
Cooper  states  that  they  were  originally  written  in  letters  of  gold.  They  consist  of  the  king’s  reply 
to  the  petition,  and  of  the  royal  order  to  Lochus,  governor  of  the  Thebaid ;  they  appear  from  the 
plate  of  Lepsius  to  be  much  defaced,  but  have  been  restored  by  M.  Letronne. 

1  Zoega,  p.  108. 

’“Descrip,  de  P  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  i,  pi.  5.  Lepsius,  “Auswahl,”  tab.  xvii.  Letronne,  “ Eclaircissements  sur  une 
inscription  grecque  contenant  une  petition  des  pretres  d’  Isis  dans  1’  lie  de  Philae.”  Belzoni,  “  Narrative,”  p.  105.  W.  J. 
Bankes,  “  Geometrical  Plan  of  the  Obelisk  discovered  at  Philae.” 


140 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

These  Greek  inscriptions  have  played  an  important  part  in  the  interpretation  of  Egyptian  hiero¬ 
glyphs.  It  was  from  their  publication,  together  with  the  hieroglyphic  columns  of  the  shaft,  that 
Champollion  was  enabled  to  decipher  the  cartouches  of  Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra,  thus  verifying  the 
conclusions  which  had  been  previously  drawn  from  a  study  of  the  celebrated  Rosetta  Stone. 

The  following  is  the  original  Greek  inscription  and  its  translation. 

BASIAEinTOAEMAIMKAIBASIAlSSHIKAEOnATPAI 

THIAAEA<t>HIKAIBASIAIS2HIKAE0nATPAITHirTNAI 

KI0EOISETEPrETAISXAIPEINOIIEPEI2THSENTfiIABA 

TS2IKAIEN$IAAISI2IAOSeEASMEriSTH2EnEIOinAPEni 

AHMOTNTESEISTAS^IAASSTPATHrOIKAIEniSTATAI 

KAIGHBAPXAIKAIBASIAIKOirPAMMATEISKAIEniXTATAI^T 

AAKITflNKAIOIAAAOirPAMMATIKOIIIANTEXKAIAIA 

KOAOeorSAIATNAMEISKAIHAOinHTnEPESIAANArKA 

TOrSIHMASnAPOrXIASATTOISnOIEISeAIOTKEKONTAS 

KAIEKTOTTOIOTTOTSTMBAINEIEAATTOTX0AITOIEPONKAI 

KIATNETEINHMA2T0TMHEXEINTAN0MIT0MENAIIP02TA2 

riNOMENASTnEPTETMfiNKAITHNTEKNnNGTXIAS 

KAISnONAA2AEOME0TMi2N0EQNMEriST2NEAN 

$AINHTAISTNTASAINOTMHNI£2ITS2ISTrrENEKAIEniXTO 

AOrPA<J)i2irPA’I'AIAOX£2ITi2ISTrrENEIKAISTPATHrS2ITHX 

GHBAIAOEMHnAPENOXAEINHMA^nPOSTATTAMHAAA 

ASIMHAENIEniTPEIIEINTOATTOnOIEINKAIHMINAlAONAI 

TOTXKA0HKONTAXnEPITOTT£2NXPHMATI2MOTSENOIS 

EniXS2PHSAIHMINANA0EINAIXTHAHNENHIANArPA^OMEN 

THNrErONTIANHMINT<t>TMQNHEPITOTTS2N<l>IAAN0PflniAN 

INAHTMETEPAXAPIEAEIMNH^TOETnAPXEinAPATTHIEISTON 

AIIANTAXPONONTOTTOTAErENOMENOTEEOME0AKAIEN 

TOTTOIAKAITOIEPONTOTHSIZIAOSETEPrETHMENOIETTTXEITE 

TRANSLATION. 

To  King  Ptolemy,  and  Queen  Cleopatra  his  sister,  and  Queen  Cleopatra  his  wife,  gods  Euergetae,  welfare: 
we,  the  priests  of  Isis,  the  very  great  goddess  (worshipped)  in  Abaton  and  Philae,  seeing  that  those  who  visit 
Philse — generals,  chiefs,  governors  of  districts  in  the  Thebaid,  royal  scribes,  chiefs  of  police,  and  all  other  function¬ 
aries,  as  well  as  their  soldiers  and  other  attendants — oblige  us  to  provide  for  them  during  their  stay,  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  which  is  that  the  temple  is  impoverished,  and  we  run  the  risk  of  not  having  enough  for  the  customary 
sacrifices  and  oblations  offered  for  you  and  for  your  children,  do  therefore  pray  you,  O  great  gods,  if  it  seem 
right  to  you,  to  order  Numenius,  your  cousin  and  secretary,  to  write  to  Lochus,  your  cousin  and  governor  of  the 
Thebaid,  not  to  disturb  us  in  this  manner,  and  not  to  allow  any  other  person  to  do  so,  and  to  give  us  authority 
to  this  effect,  that  we  may  put  up  a  stele  with  an  inscription  commemmorating  your  beneficence  toward  us  on 
this  occasion,  so  that  your  gracious  favor  may  be  recorded  for  ever ;  which  being  done,  we  and  the  temple  of 
Isis  shall  be  indebted  to  you  for  this,  among  other  favors.  Hail. 

The  following  are  translations  of  the  king’s  reply  to  the  petition,  and  of  his  order  to  Lochus 
(not  here  given  in  the  original  Greek  text). 

LETTER  OF  THE  KING  TO  THE  PRIESTS. 

To  the  priests  of  Isis  in  Abaton  and  Philae,  Numenius,  cousin  and  secretary,  and  priest  of  the  god  Alexander, 
and  of  the  gods  Soters,  of  the  gods  Adelphi,  of  the  gods  Euergetae,  of  the  gods  Philopatores,  of  the  gods 
Epiphanes,  of  the  god  Eupator,  of  the  god  Philometer,  and  the  gods  Euergetae,  greeting  :  Of  the  letter  written 
to  Lochus,  the  cousin  and  general,  we  place  the  copy  here  below,  and  we  give  you  the  permission  you  ask  of 
erecting  a  stele.  Fare  ye  well.  In  the  year  ....  of  Panemus  ....  and  of  Pachons  26. 

ORDER  OF  THE  KING. 

King  Ptolemy  and  Queen  Cleopatra  the  sister,  and  Queen  Cleopatra  the  wife,  to  Lochus  our  brother,  greeting ; 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks . 


141 

Of  the  petition  addressed  to  us  by  the  priests  of  Isis  in  Abaton  and  Philae,  we  place  a  copy  below,  and  you 
will  do  well  to  order  that  on  no  account  they  be  molested  in  those  matters  which  they  have  declared  to  us.  Hail. 

OBELISK  OF  CATANIA,  SICILY. 

The  so-called  obelisk  of  Catania  is  placed,  like  that  of  the  Piazza  della  Minerva,  Rome,  upon  an 
elephant  cut  in  stone,  and  is  erected  in  front  of  the  cathedral.1  It  is  not  an  Egyptian  obelisk. 
According  to  Westropp,  it  is  probably  a  Roman  imitation.  D’  Orville,  quoted  by  Zoega,  states  that  the 
citizens  of  Catania  claim  that  it  was  made  there.  It  is  probable  that  it  formerly  served  as  the  meta  of 
a  circus.  Four  columns  of  hieroglyphs  are  cut  upon  it,  each  column  occupying  two  of  its  faces. 

In  the  museum  of  this  city  is  preserved  a  fragment,  a  broken  apex,  with  a  part  of  the  upper 
portion  of  the  shaft.  This,  according  to  Westropp,  is  a  fragment  of  a  second  obelisk.  Zoega,  however, 
concludes  that  it  belonged  originally  to  the  standing  obelisk :  it  has,  he  says,  the  same  polygonal 
form,  and  the  little  of  inscription  that  remains  upon  it  would  well  join  on  upon  the  inscriptions  of  the 
standing  shaft. 


OBELISK  OF  ARLES,  FRANCE. 

In  the  Place  de  1’  Hotel  de  Ville  of  the  city  of  Arles,  Southern  France,  there  stands  an  obelisk 
of  gray  granite.2  As  it  is  uninscribed,  its  ancient  history  is  not  known.  Zoega  conjectures  that  it 
was  brpught  from  Egypt  to  Arles  about  A.  D.  315,  in  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great.  The  gray 
granite  from  which  it  is  hewn  exactly  resembles  that  of  the  not  far  remote  quarries  of  Mt.  Esterel,  near 
Frejus,  France.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  it  is  not  of  Egyptian,  but  of  Roman  origin,  made  and 
transported  hither  in  the  time  of  some  one  of  the  later  Roman  emperors.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been 
intended  for  the  meta  of  an  ancient  circus  at  Arles  ;  but  it  was  never  so  employed  ;  it  was  suffered 
to  lie  in  neglect  on  the  riverbank  where  it  was  landed. 

According  to  Buchoz,  it  was  found  lying  buried  in  a  garden  on  the  bank  of  the  Rhone,  1389. 
The  annals  of  the  city  record  that  Charles  IX  of  France  A.  D.  (i56o-i574)  gave  orders  that  the 
shaft  should  be  transported  to  some  other  city  ;  but  these  orders  were  never  carried  out.  In  1676  it 
was  erected  in  its  present  position  by  the  citizens  of  Arles,  in  honor  of  Louis  XIV.  Upon  the  apex 
was  set  a  gilded  sun,  the  emblem  or  device  of  that  monarch, — such  as  is  seen,  for  example,  on  the 
gates  of  Versailles, — and  on  the  four  faces  of  the  pedestal  were  cut  high-sounding  inscriptions  in  his 
praise.  Some  restorations  were  made  in  1829,  at  which  time  four  bronze  lions  were  placed  at  the 
angles  of  the  base.  Later,  an  inscription  has  been  added  in  honor  of  Napoleon  III. 

LEPSIUS’  OBELISK,  BERLIN. 

The  most  ancient  of  all  obelisks  now  existing  is  that  found  by  Lepsius,  in  the  year  1843,  in  a 
tomb  near  the  pyramids  of  Gizeh.3  In  his  “  Letters  from  Egypt,”  he  speaks  of  this  tomb  as  belonging 
to  the  beginning  of  the  vii  dynasty ;  but  in  his  “  Denkmaler,”  he  classes  the  obelisk  among  the 
monuments  of  the  iv-v  dynasties.  Its  form  is  that  of  the  earliest  representations  of  an  obelisk  on 
scarabei.  The  following  is  his  own  account  of  the  discovery  of  the  shaft,  in  a  letter  written  at 
Gizeh,  Jan.  28,  1843  : 

“  Some  days  ago  we  found,  standing  in  its  original  place  in  a  tomb  of  the  beginning  of  the  vii 
dynasty,  an  obelisk  of  only  some  feet  in  height,  but  well  preserved,  and  bearing  the  name  of  the  person 
to  whom  the  tomb  was  erected.  This  form  of  monument,  which  plays  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  the 
New  Empire,  is  thus  thrown  some  dynasties  farther  back  into  the  Old  Empire  than  even  the  obelisk 
of  Heliopolis.” 

1  Zoega,  pp.  87,  647. 

’Zoega,  p.  87.  Buchoz,  “Correspondence  d’ Histoire  Naturelle.”  Murray’s  “France.”  (Wood-cut  in  English  Encyclo¬ 
paedia.) 

’Lepsius,  “Briefe  aus  4Egypten,  p.  40.  “Denkmaler,”  vol.  iv,  pi.  88. 


I42 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 


The  obelisk  is  the  smallest  known,  being  only  two  feet,  one  and  one-half  inches  high.  It  is 
preserved  in  the  Royal  Museum  at  Berlin. 

OTHER  OBELISKS  IN  EGYPT. 

OBELISK  OF  BEGIG,  OR  CROCODILOPOLIS. 

Near  Begig  (or  Ebgig)  in  the  Fayum,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  site  of  the  ancient  Crocodil- 
opolis,  and  of  the  former  position  of  Lake  Moeris,  there  lies  prostrate  in  the  sands  a  shaft  of  syenite 
broken  into  two  pieces.1  It  is  a  monument  of  Usortesen  I  (xii  dynasty,  B.  C.  2371-2325,  Lepsius,) 
who  also  erected  the  obelisk  now  standing  at  Heliopolis. 

The  broken  shaft  at  Begig  is  so  peculiar  in  form,  showing  two  large  and  two  small  faces,  that 
it  is  often  called  a  stele  rather  than  an  obelisk.  Instead  of  terminating  in  a  pyramidion,  it  has  a 
rounded  summit,  in  the  centre  of  which  a  deep  groove  is  cut, — it  is  not  known  for  what  purpose. 

As  the  shaft  now  lies,  only  one  of  its  broad  faces  is  visible.  Its  upper  portion  is  occupied  by 
five  vignettes,  representing  the  king  as  appearing  before  ten  pairs  of  divinities,  five  on  the  right,  five 
on  the  left  (Chabas)  ;  the  most  honorable  positions  being  assigned  to  the  deities  Amen  and  Phthah 
(Rawlinson,  ii,  149).  The  inscriptions  here  give  only  the  names  of  the  king  and  the  divinities. 
Below  these  vignettes  are  nineteen  vertical  columns  of  hieroglyphs,  separated  by  grooved  lines  :  the 
characters  are  very  small,  and,  for  the  most  part,  illegible  ;  but  the  name  of  the  monarch  is  recog¬ 
nizable.  On  the  narrow  faces  of  the  shaft  are  inscriptions  which  speak  of  the  king  as  “  beloved 
by  Phthah  and  by  Month,”  Mentu,  a  local  deity  of  Hermonthis,  or  Erment. 

OBELISK  IN  CAIRO  (?) 

In  Loftie’s  “  Ride  in  Egypt,”  p.  84,  is  a  wood-cut  of  a  part  of  an  obelisk,  built  into  a  gateway. 
No  description  of  this  fragment,  however,  is  afforded  in  the  text,  and  it  may  be  identical  with  one  of 
the  Amyrtaeus  obelisks  in  the  British  Museum. 

OBELISKS  OF  SAN  (TANIS). 

The  city  of  San  in  the  Delta  (Tanis  ;  the  Zoan  of  the  Bible,  the  scene  of  the  miracles  of  Moses, 
Psalm  lxxviii,  43,  and  the  starting-point  of  the  Exodus,  Brugsch)  was  made  the  capital  of  the  Hyksos, 
or  Semitic  Shepherd  Kings,  xiii-xvii  dynasties.  After  their  expulsion,  at  the  beginning  of  the  xviii 
dynasty,  it  was  for  a  time  neglected  ;  but,  under  the  xix  dynasty,  it  was  made  a  royal  residence,  and 

adorned  with  new  structures,  replacing  those  of  the  hated  Shepherds.  Especially  was  it  favored  by 

Ramses  II,  who  transferred  his  court  to  this  place,  and  made  it  a  new  temple-city,  filling  it  with 

sanctuaries,  statues,  and  obelisks  (Brugsch,  “  Egypt,”  ii,  94). 

The  fragments  of  ten  or  more  (twelve  obelisks,  Ebers ;  thirteen  obelisks,  Fergusson 2)  prostrate 
obelisks  are  found  on  this  site 3 ;  the  largest  number  ever  discovered  at  one  place.  They  seem  to  have 
formed  a  great  avenue  in  front  of  a  temple  of  Ra,  and  are  assigned  to  the  time  of  Ramses  II. 
One,  figured  in  the  “  Desc.  de  1’  Egypte,”  is  represented  as  nearly  perfect ;  its  pyramidion  is  sculptured 
with  vignettes  in  which  a  single  sitting  figure  is  shown.  Some  of  the  shafts  bear  one  column, 
others  two  columns  of  hieroglyphs.  Two  of  these  obelisks,  both  by  Ramses  II,  are  especially 

mentioned  by  Birch :  on  one  the  scenes  of  the  pyramidion  depict  the  king  adoring  Ra  and  Turn  : 
the  inscriptions  declare  that  he  is  “the  smiter  of  the  Shepherds,”  and  that  he  “makes  his  frontiers 
wherever  he  wishes.” 

The  shafts  vary  in  size  :  some  have  a  mean  diameter  of  about  five  feet,  and  when  entire  may 

1  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  iv,  pi.  71.  Lepsius,  “  Denkmaler,”  vol.  iv,  pi.  119.  Lenormant,  “Musee,”  pi. 
xxvi.  Lawrence  Oliphant,  in  Blackwood. 

a  Ebers,  “Alexandria,”  p.  no.  Fergusson,  i,  hi. 

’“Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  v,  pi.  28,  29.  Denon,  “Voyage,”  pi.  17.  Lenormant,  “Musee,”  pi.  xxix,  No.  7. 
Burton,  “  Exc.  Hier.,”  pi.  xxxviii-xl. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks.  143 

have  been  from  fifty  to  sixty  feet  high  ;  those  at  the  lower  extremity  of  the  avenue  measured  about 
thirty-three  feet  (Murray,  Westropp,  and  Cooper). 

OBELISK  OF  ASSOUAN  (SYENE). 

In  the  Syenite  quarries  of  Assouan  (Syene),  from  which  so  many  splendid  monuments  were  taken 
to  adorn  the  cities  of  ancient  Egypt,  is  still  lying  an  unfinished  obelisk.  According  to  Wilkinson,  the 
shaft  was  left  in  the  quarry  because  of  a  fracture  of  its  centre:  Murray  states  that  there  is  only  the 
semblance  of  a  fracture.  It  is  finished  on  three  sides,  but  it  is  still  united  to  the  quarry  by  its  lower 
face.  It  is  remarkable,  says  Ebers,  as  showing  that  the  Egyptians  often  finished  their  works  in  the 
quarry. 

OBELISK  OF  PHILA). 

In  the  myth  of  Osiris,  Typhon,  the  darkness  and  death,  is  represented  as  cutting  the  body  of 
Osiris  into  fourteen  fragments,  and  scattering  them  far  and  wide.  Isis  sought  and  gathered  up  the 
fragments,  and,  on  each  spot  where  one  was  found,  raised  a  monument  in  its  honor.  Philse  was  one 
of  these  burial-places. 

In  the  sacred  island  of  Philse,  especially  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  Osiris,  the  hall  of 
reception,  which  visitors  approached  from  the  landing-place,  was  originally  decorated  with  obelisks  of 
sandstone  (Ebers).  At  this  point  there  still  remains  an  uninscribed  sandstone  shaft,  the  apex  of  which 

is  broken  off  and  missing.1  It  is  assigned  to  the  times  of  the  Ptolemies,  by  whom  the  principal 

buildings  of  Philae  were  erected.  (See  obelisk  of  Corfe  Castle.) 

OBELISK  OF  SARBUT  EL-KHADEM,  SINAITIC  PENINSULA. 

In  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  on  the  way  from  Suez  to  Mount  Sinai,  are  the  hills  called  Sarbut  el- 
Khadem,  overlooking  the  Wadi  Nasb  (see  obelisk  of  Wadi  Nasb).  Here  are  ancient  copper  mines, 
once  extensively  worked  by  the  Egyptians.  Inscriptions  here  found  show  that  mining  was  carried  on 
at  this  point  in  the  reign  of  Amenhat  II,  xii  dynasty  ;  centuries  before  the  Israelites  passed  by  in 
their  weary  march  to  Sinai.  Inscriptions  of  Hatasou  and  Thothmes  III  show  that  mining  went  on 

under  their  rule.  A  colony  of  workmen  was  established  here,  bringing  with  them,  though  in  their 

plain  workmen  fashion,  the  life  and  architecture  of  Egypt  into  the  Peninsula.  At  Sarbut  el-Khadem 
a  temple  was  erected  to  the  goddess  Hathor,  the  ruins  of  which  still  remain.  Here  are  found  still 
standing  seven  or  eight  stelae,  from  seven  to  ten  feet  high,  from  eighteen  inches  to  two  feet  wide, 
and  from  fourteen  inches  in  thickness,  bearing  the  cartouches  of  different  monarchs  (Robinson’s  “  Biblical 
Researches  ”). 

Here  too,  according  to  Baedeker,  there  stands,  on  a  hill  above  the  mines,  an  ancient  Egyptian 
obelisk  with  partially  obliterated  hieroglyphics.2 

OBELISK  OF  WADI  NASB,  OR  NAHASB,  SINAITIC  PENINSULA. 

The  Wadi  Nasb  lies  near  the  western  shore  of  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  about  seventy  miles  S.  S.  E. 
from  Suez.  A  little  farther  on  to  the  S.  E.  is  Sarbut  el-Khadem,  on  the  hills  of  that  name. 

At  Wadi  Nasb,  on  a  hill  which  covers  one  of  the  old  mines,  the  German  traveller  Ruppell 

discovered,  in  1817,  a  small  sandstone  obelisk  which  had  fallen  from  its  pedestal.3  The  face  which 

lay  on  the  ground,  and  was  thus  protected  from  injury,  proved  on  examination  to  be  covered  with 
finely  cut  hieroglyphs  :  the  inscriptions  on  the  other  sides  had  been  obliterated.  Unfortunately,  no 

1  “  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  i,  pi.  1,  2,  4. 

2  Baedeker,  “Lower  Egypt,”  p.  5x2.  Baedeker  alone  mentions  this  obelisk.  I  have  quoted  all  that  he  says.  I  have 
examined  all  the  books  in  Astor  Library  on  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  and  find  no  mention  of  this  shaft.  It  is  not  the  same 
with  the  obelisk  of  “Nahasb”  (Cooper,  p.  102),  for  that  was  prostrate,  while  Baedeker’s  obelisk  of  Sarbut  el-Khadem  is  standing. 

3  Ruppell,  “  Reisen  in  Nubien,  Kordofan,  und  dem  petraischen  Arabien,”  p.  266. 


1 44 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks. 

copy  of  the  hieroglyphs  was  preserved,  and  it  is  impossible  to  decide  to  which  reign  the  shaft  belonged. 
Cooper  conjectures  that  it  is  to  be  referred  to  the  Sai’tic  period, — the  xxvi  dynasty. 

OBELISKS  OF  DRAH  ABOU’L  NEGGAH,  THEBES. 

In  the  necropolis  of  Drah  Abou’l  Neggah,  on  the  western  bank  of  the  Nile  at  Thebes,  were  found 
the  mummy-cases  of  two  kings  named  Antef  or  Entef,  of  the  xi  dynasty  (B.  C.  2423-2380,  Lepsius), 
which  have  been  removed  to  Paris. 

A  small  obelisk  bearing  the  name  of  one  of  the  Antefs  of  this  dynasty  was  discovered  here  by 
Mariette.  Its  height  was  not  more  than  3.5  metres,  that  is,  less  than  eleven  feet  (Rawlinson).1 

Villiers  Stuart  reports  that  in  1878  he  discovered  in  this  necropolis,  close  to  the  spot  where  the 
mummy  of  Queen  Ah-hotep  had  been  found,  two  prostrate  obelisks,  each  broken  into  several  pieces.2 
On  removing  the  sand  in  which  they  were  buried  he  found  them  to  be  inscribed  with  well- 
preserved  hieroglyphs,  which  prove,  as  he  says,  that  the  two  shafts  were  erected  by  a  king  Antef 
of  the  xi  dynasty.  The  plate  which  he  gives  shows  one  face  of  each.  The  inscriptions  shown  in  this 
plate  are  translated  by  him  as  follows  :  on  one  obelisk,  “  The  crowned  Horus,  sovereign  of  the  moun¬ 
tain-lands,  perfected  of  god,  son  of  the  Sun,  granted  life  forevermore  ”  ;  on  the  other  obelisk,  “  Noub- 
Kafer-Ra,  perfect  of  god,  made  for  himself  good  and  splendid  temples.”  No  dimensions  are  given  for 
these  shafts. 

These  obelisks  of  Drah  Abou’l  Neggah,  if  accepted  as  belonging  to  the  xi  dynasty,  are  the  most 
ancient  of  all  known  obelisks,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  small  example  found  by  Lepsius. 

1  Rawlinson,  “  Egypt,”  vol.  ii,  p.  148.  Mariette,  “  Monuments  Divers,”  pi.  50,  a. 

‘Villiers  Stuart,  “Nile  Gleanings,”  p.  273. 


Record  of  all  Egyptian  Obelisks , 


i45 


TABLE  OF  COMPARATIVE  DIMENSIONS  AND  WEIGHT  OF  OBELISKS  AS  FAR  AS  CAN  BE  ASCERTAINED. 


TOTAL  HEIGHT. 

THICKNESS  AT  BASE. 

Propor- 

Weight  in 

Name  or  Designation. 

tion  of 

Max. 

Probably 

Min. 

Max. 

Probably 

Min. 

H.toT. 

pounds. 

given. 

correct. 

given. 

given. 

correct. 

given. 

Lateran, 

108  -7" 

105 '-6" 

104/-1  1" 

(  9~IQ 

9  -6 

1 1.2 

1,020,000 

Hatasou,  Karnak,  . 

108-0 

97-6 

90-0 

8-6 

7-10 

7-10 

12.5 

742,000 

Assouan,1 

Vatican, 

95-° 

95-° 

95-° 

n-1.5 

n-1.5 

1 1  1 *  -5 

8-5 

1,540,000 

83-1-5 

83-1-5 

82-4 

9-4 

8-10 

8—10 

9-4 

721,000 

568,000 

Luxor,  .... 

82-0 

82-0 

77-0 

8-2.5 

8-2.5 

7-8 

10.0 

Piazza  del  Popolo, 

78-6 

78-6 

78—0 

8-5 

8-0 

8-0 

9.8 

525,000 

Paris,  .... 

82-0 

74-11 

74-4 

8-0 

7— 11 

7-6 

9-4 

498,000 

Thothmes  I,  Karnak,  . 

93-6 

71-7 

63-3 

8-1.5 

6-1 

5-i 

11. 7 

346,000 

Monte  Citorio, 

72-0 

7i-5 

69-0 

7— 11 

7— 11 

7-4 

9.0 

460,000 

New  York,  . 

71-0 

69-6a 

53-4 

8-8 

i  7-9-25  v 9 
(  7-8.25  X 

7-5 

9.0 

448,000 

London,  .... 

68-5.5 

68-5-5 

64-0 

\7~8  X 
(  7-io-3 

i  7-8  x 
7-10.3 

7-7 

8.8 

418,000 

Heliopolis, 

68-2 

67-0 

66-0 

i  6-0  x 

I  6-4  X 

\  6-1 X 

1  6-3  X 

6-0 

10.9 

271,000 

Constantinople, 

59-7 

55-4 

50-0 

7-2 

7-0 

6-10 

8.1 

299,000 

Piazza  Navona, 

54-3 

54-3 

51-0 

4-5 

4-5 

4-5 

12.2 

1 18,000 

S.  Maria  Maggiore,  . 

48-5 

48-5 

48-5 

4-3 

4-3 

4-3 

n-4 

102,000 

Monte  Cavallo, 

45-0 

45-o 

45-° 

4-2 

10.8 

96,000 

Trinita  dei  Monti,  . 

48-0 

.  43-6 

43-6 

,  4-3 

4-3 

,  4-3 

10.8 

90,000 

Begig,  .... 

43-0 

42-9 

41-6 

13s* 

{Z* 

j  6-8 

(  4-o 

7-9 

120,000 

Prioli,  .... 

Philae,  .... 

35-0 

33-0 

35-o 

33-o 

33-° 

33“° 

6—0 

5-10 

5-9 

6.0 

118,000 

Monte  Pincio,  . 

3  0-0 

30-0 

30-0 

3—1 1 

3-1 1 

3-11 

7.6 

42,000 

Corfe  Castle, 

22-1.5 

22-1.5 

22-1 

2-2 

2-2 

2-2 

10.2 

12,000 

Pantheon, 

20—2 

20-0 

17-0 

2-7 

2-7 

2-7 

8.0 

13,500 

Amyrtseus, 

19-9 

19-9 

17—0 

2-4 

2-4 

2-4 

8.5 

12,000 

Thothmes  III,  Karnak, 

20-0 

19-0 

18-10 

3-6 

3-6 

3-6 

5-2 

34,000 

Piazza  Minerva, 

17-7 

17-7 

16-2 

2-6 

2-6 

2-6 

7.0 

1 1,000 

Boboli  Gardens, 

Catania, 

16-1 

12-4 

16-1 

12-4 

l6-I 

12-4 

2-5 

2-5 

2-5 

6.6 

10,000 

Thebes,  .... 

1 1— 0 

1 1-0 

1 1— 0 

Benevento,  . 

1 1-9 

9-0 

9-0 

2-1 

2-1 

2-1 

4-3 

5,000 

Villa  Mattei, 

8-3 

8-3 

7-4 

2-7 

2-7 

2-7 

3-2 

4,000 

Alnwick, 

Wadi  Nasb, 

7-3 

7-1 1 

7-3 

7-1 1 

7-3 

7-1 1 

1  0-9  7  V 
(o-9  X 

j  O-9.7 
(  0-9 

0-9 

9.2 

600 

Florence, 

7  ° 

6-7 

7  0 

6-7 

7  0 

6-7 

1-8 

1-8 

1-8 

Borgian,  .... 

Florence, 

5-10 

5-10 

5-10 

Frag.  Rome, 

Frag.  Rome,5 

5  1 

4-5 

Albani,  .... 

San  (Tanis),4 

Cairo,  .... 

2-6 

Essex,5 

Lepsius,  .... 

2-1.5 

2-1.5 

2-1.5 

0-9 

0-9 

0-9 

2.4 

200 

1  Still  in  the  quarry  at  Syene. 

5  Measurements  exact. 

5  There  are  also  other  fragments  at  Rome. 

4  A  number  of  fragments  of  obelisks  exist  here. 

*  A  pyramidion  only. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


NOTES  ON  THE  ANCIENT  METHODS  OF  QUARRYING,  TRANSPORTING,  AND  ERECTING  OBELISKS. 

QUARRYING. 

WE  can  only  admire,  but  not  explain,  the  marvellous  achievements  of  the  Egyptian  engineers.  At 
a  time  when  other  ancient  nations  had  hardly  felt  the  first  breath  of  civilization,  Egypt  had 
made  a  vast  advance  in  all  the  arts  and  sciences.  Gifted  with  great  intellectual  powers, — coming  to 
even  those  works  of  theirs  which  are  the  oldest  to  us  with  the  experience  of  many  centuries,  their 
monuments  appear  to  us  as  marvels.  We  count  some  of  their  processes  among  the  “  lost  arts.”  The 
daring  modern  world,  so  self-conscious  as  it  is  of  its  superiority  in  knowledge  and  in  almost  intelligent 
machinery  over  the  world  of  any  preceding  age,  would  yet  hesitate  to  compete  with  those  long-dead 
Egyptians  in  many  an  architectural  or  mechanical  tour  de  force.  “It  is  doubtful,”  says  Rawlinson 
(“  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  484),  “  whether  the  steam-sawing  of  the  present  day  could  be  trusted  to  produce 
in  ten  years  from  the  quarries  of  Aberdeen,  a  single  obelisk  such  as  those  which  the  Pharaohs  set 
up  by  dozens.”  To  have  built  the  pyramids ;  to  have  erected  the  great  “  Hall  of  Columns  ” 
at  Karnak ;  to  have  sculptured  and  polished  colossal  statues  of  syenite  with  the  care  and  delicacy 
of  gem-cutting ;  to  have  severed  from  their  native  rock,  transported,  finished,  and  set  up  the  giant 
obelisks  of  Queen  Hatasou  in  the  short  space  of  seven  months, — these  are  achievements  which  rank 
their  authors  among  the  foremost  of  the  builders  of  the  world,  the  foremost  of  the  monumental 
nations. 

We  come  now  to  speak  of  the  quarrying,  transportation,  and  elevation  of  obelisks.  The  data 
are  few  ;  the  questions  are  difficult,  and  we  cannot  hope  to  give  them  full  solution.  It  may  be  that 
papyri  as  yet  unknown,  tablets  of  inscriptions  yet  to  be  deciphered,  paintings  on  the  walls  of  some 
royal  tomb  which  is  yet  inviolate,  may  hereafter  throw  light  upon  the  mechanical  methods  which  are 
at  present  obscure  to  us  ;  but,  as  yet,  the  veil  of  oblivion  which  has  fallen  over  the  secrets  of 
Egyptian  engineering  skill  has  never  been  wholly  lifted. 

All  obelisks  now  existing  are  of  red  granite  from  Syene  (Assouan),  except  the  sandstone  example 
at  Philae,  and  the  basalt  shafts  of  Amyrtseus  in  the  British  Museum.  The  situation  of  the  quarries 
of  Assouan  was  most  favorable  for  the  transportation  of  the  enormous  blocks  of  stone  which  were 
there  extracted ;  the  quarries  are  below  the  first  cataract,  and  the  great  roadway  of  the  Nile  was 
open  thence  to  the  gates  of  the  various  cities  of  Egypt.  The  rock  of  these  quarries,  called  from  the 
name  of  the  place  syenite,  is  remarkably  free  from  cracks  and  from  veins  of  foreign  matter,  as  hard 
as  iron,  of  the  fine  ruddy  color  which  symbolized  to  the  Egyptian  the  rays  of  the  sun  god,  and  taking 

the  most  beautiful  and  brilliant  polish.  The  quarries  still  show  the  traces  of  the  workmen’s  labor ; 

the  marks  of  their  tools  are  on  many  an  unremoved  block  or  column.  There  still  lies  a  gigantic 

monolith,  chiselled  into  form  on  three  of  its  sides,  but  its  fourth  face  not  yet  severed  from  the  rock. 

146 


Quarrying,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 


147 


(See  the  obelisk  of  Assouan.)  How  sure  of  their  skill  must  have  been  those  quarrymen,  so  carefully 
and  with  such  labor  to  three  fourths  complete  their  work,  while  still  the  shaft  made  but  one  piece  with 
the  formless  mass  of  stone  beneath  it ! 

It  is  from  the  examination  of  this  shaft  and  of  other  blocks  lying  near  by,  together  with  the 
observations  of  Gau  and  De  Roziere  at  the  quarries  of  Gertaas  and  Silsileh,  that  the  methods  of  the 
Egyptian  quarrymen  have  been,  to  a  certain  extent,  made  known  to  us. 

On  a  mass  of  quarried  syenite,  lying  three  hundred  metres  southeast  of  modern  Syene,  De 
Roziere  found  tool-marks  of  an  unusual  character.  The  whole  surface  of  the  rock  is  covered  with 
marks  of  the  chisel,  but  cut  with  such  change  of  direction  of  the  tool  as  to  form  to  the  eye 
parallel  horizontal  lines  about  seven  inches  apart.  Thirty  such  parellel  lines  were  observed,  and  in 
a  single  line  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  chisel-strokes  were  counted.  De  Roziere  can  offer  no  full 
explanation  of  this,  but  it  is  his  opinion  that  the  strokes  indicate  more  than  the  force  of  the  human 
hand,  and  that  they  were  probably  produced  by  some  sort  of  machine  capable  of  striking  a  violent 
blow.  (“  Descr.  de  1’  Egypte,  Antiq.,”  vol.  i,  pi.  32.)  No  other  example  of  this  kind  of  quarry- work 
was  found  by  the  French  engineer. 

Belzoni,  in  his  narrative,  says  of  the  Assouan  quarries  :  “  It  appeared  to  me  that  the  pieces  of 
granite  were  procured  by  cutting  a  line  with  a  chisel,  about  two  inches  deep,  around  the  stone  intended 
to  be  removed,  and  then  giving  a  great  blow  by  some  machine,  which  separated  the  part  like  glass 
when  cut  by  a  diamond.”  Very  curious  figures  of  such  machines  had  been  given  by  Kircher — the 
construction  of  his  own  imagination — in  his  “  CEdipus,”  vol.  ii,  long  before  Belzoni’s  day. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  in  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances  which  have  been  observed, 
the  quarry-marks  indicate  that  the  blocks  were  severed  from  their  native  bed  by  processes  much  more 
simple  :  either  by  the  use  of  fire,  or  of  wedges,  whether  of  wood  or  iron. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  cleavage  of  the  rock  was  accomplished  by  fire.  According 
to  Sir  J.  F.  Herschell,  this  method  is  employed  to-day  in  India  :  “  In  the  granite  quarries  near  Seringa- 
patam,  the  most  enormous  blocks  are  separated  from  the  solid  rock  by  the  following  neat  and  simple 
process.  The  workmen  having  found  a  portion  of  the  rock  sufficiently  extensive,  and  situated  near 

the  edge  of  the  part  already  quarried,  lays  bare  the  upper  surface,  and  marks  on  it  a  line  in  the 

direction  of  the  intended  separation,  along  which  a  groove  is  cut  with  a  chisel,  about  a  couple  of  inches 

in  depth.  Above  this  groove  a  narrow  line  of  fire  is  then  kindled,  and  maintained  till  the  rock  below 

is  thoroughly  heated,  immediately  on  which  a  line  of  men  and  women,  each  provided  with  a  pot  full 
of  cold  water,  suddenly  sweep  off  the  ashes,  and  pour  the  water  into  the  heated  groove,  when  the  rock 
at  once  splits  with  a  clear  fracture.  Square  blocks  of  six  feet  in  the  side,  and  upwards  of  eighty  feet 
in  length,  are  sometimes  detached  by  this  method.”  Long  before,  Agatharcides,  in  his  account  of  the 
gold  mines  of  Egypt,  had  mentioned  that  the  rocks  were  split  by  burning  wood,  but  had  not  described 
the  process  employed. 

The  grooves  mentioned  above  by  Herschell,  cut  to  define  the  size  and  form  of  the  block  to  be 
extracted,  have  been  observed  in  the  Egyptian  quarries  in  repeated  instances,  cut  two  or  three  inches 

wide  and  deep.  But  within  these  grooves  are  cut  holes  which  indicate  the  use  of  wedges.  Often, 

according  to  De  Roziere,  the  grooves  are  not  found,  but  only  the  wedge-holes,  about  two  inches  long 

and  deep,  by  one  inch  wide,  arranged  in  one  long  straight  line.  From  six  to  seven  of  these  holes  were 

found  in  the  extent  of  one  metre.  The  slow  but  ever-increasing  pressure  of  the  inserted  wedges 
rent  the  rock  asunder  more  surely  and  exactly  than  could  the  heavy  blow  of  Belzoni’s  fancied  machine. 

In  more  modern  quarrying  two  sorts  of  wedges  are  employed  :  wedges  of  iron,  which  are  struck 
all  at  once  with  repeated  blows  along  the  whole  line  of  the  intended  separation  ;  and  wedges  of  well- 
dried  wood,  first  driven  to  their  place,  and  then  drenched  with  water.  In  the  opinion  of  Wilkinson, 
the  grooves  so  often  found  served  not  only  to  define  the  form  of  the  block,  but  also  to  conduct 


148 


Quarrying ,  Transporting ,  Erecting  Obelisks. 

water  to  the  wedges.  The  use  of  wooden  wedges,  says  De  Roziere,  would  be  much  more  convenient 
and  effectual,  because  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  expansion  of  the  wetted  wedges  against  the  sides  of 
the  cleavage  is  exerted  uniformly  and  simultaneously,  so  that  the  block  is  split  off  always  in  the 
direction  of  the  line  already  traced.  This  he  regards  as  the  method,  par  excellence,  for  detaching 
large  blocks  when  it  is  desired  that  they  should  preserve  certain  determined  forms.  He  adds  that  it 
is  probable  that  the  Egyptians  employed  these  wooden  wedges  in  their  quarrying,  nor  can  he 
conceive  of  any  other  method  for  detaching  the  giant  blocks  required  for  the  obelisks  ;  percussion  of 
iron  wedges,  he  says,  could  never  be  instantaneous  along  the  whole  length  of  the  block,  and  the 
risk  would  be  incurred  of  breaking  the  shaft  into  at  least  two  pieces. 

An  interesting  account  of  the  mode  of  cleavage  by  iron  wedges,  as  practised  by  Hindoo 
workmen  at  the  present  day,  is  given  in  a  paper  on  the  Seringapatam  obelisk,  published  in  the  “  Edin. 
Philos.  Transactions,”  vol.  ix.1  We  have  quoted  above  Sir  J.  F.  Herschell’s  account  of  a  mode  of 
splitting  large  masses  of  rock  by  the  use  of  fire,  as  practised  in  India :  the  following  is  Col.  Wilks’ 

description  of  another  Hindoo  method  of  accomplishing  the  same  by  the  use  of  iron  wedges  or 

chisels  : 

The  workman  looks  for  a  plain,  naked  surface  of  sufficient  extent,  and  a  stratum  [Col.  Wilks  confesses  that 
this  term  is  ungeological,  as  applied  to  granite,  but  says  that  no  other  word  will  well  describe  the  kind  of  mass 
from  which  these  large  blocks  are  taken]  of  proper  thickness,  sufficiently  near  the  edge  of  the  rock  to  facilitate 
the  separation,  or  made  so  by  previous  trimming.  The  spot  being  determined,  a  line  is  marked  along  the 
direction  of  the  intended  separation,  and  a  groove,  about  two  inches  wide  and  deep,  is  cut  with  chisels ;  or,  if  the 
stratum  be  thin,  holes  of  the  same  dimensions,  at  one  and  one  half  feet  or  two  feet  distance,  are  cut  along  the 
line.  In  either  case,  all  being  now  ready,  a  workman  with  a  small  chisel  is  placed  at  each  hole  or  interval,  and 

with  small  iron  mallets  the  line  of  men  keep  beating  on  the  chisels,  but  not  with  violence,  from  left  to  right 

or  from  right  to  left ;  this  operation,  as  they  say,  is  sometimes  continued  for  two  or  three  days  before  the 
separation  is  effected.  Those  who  have  seen  the  mode  of  cutting,  as  it  is  called,  plate-glass,  will  not  be  surprised 
at  their  beating  from  one  end,  and  the  fissure  also  taking  place  from  one  end  to  the  other.  This  is  the  mode 
by  which  the  Seringapatam  stone  was  separated. 

Col.  Wilks  adds  that  the  other  method,  by  the  use  of  fire,  does  not  produce  so  clean  fracture  as 
this,  by  beating. 

A  saw,  with  which  sand  was  employed,  was  sometimes  (very  rarely,  according  to  De  Roziere), 
used  in  the  deep  vertical  cuttings.  Saw-marks  are  found,  for  example,  on  the  side  of  a  basalt 
sarcophagus  in  the  British  Museum,  and  which  indicate,  according  to  Cooper,  the  last  cutting  which 
separated  the  block  from  the  quarry.  The  marks  of  a  saw  were  observed  by  De  Roizere  on  blocks 
in  the  Assouan  quarries  ;  from  their  appearance,  and  from  the  traces  of  oxide  of  copper  upon  them, 
he  concluded  that  the  saw  employed  was  of  copper,  and  that  its  cutting  edge  was  curvilinear. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  Cooper  that,  at  the  separation  of  a  block  from  its  native  rock,  the  under 
horizontal  surface  having  been  cut  free,  the  last  cutting  was  a  vertical  one.  He  further  states  that, 
the  props  which  supported  the  block  from  beneath  having  been  removed,  the  stone,  when  nearly 
sawed  through,  was  allowed  to  break  off  by  its  own  weight,  thus  having  a  rough  and  disfiguring 
fracture  at  the  lower  edge  :  examples  of  this,  he  mentions,  are  to  be  seen  in  sarcophagi,  now  in 

1  The  Seringapatam  obelisk,  to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  several  times  to  refer,  is  thus  described  in  a  letter  by  Col. 
Wilks  (“  Ed.  Philos.  Transac.,”  vol.  ix)  :  The  obelisk  was  erected  at  Seringapatam,  in  1805,  to  the  memory  of  Josiah  Webbe. 
It  was  entirely  the  work  of  the  Hindoos,  except  the  design,  which  was  furnished  by  a  European.  The  plinth  of  the  obelisk 
is  one  and  one  half  feet  thick,  formed  of  three  stones  of  equal  dimensions,  which  rest  on  three  similar  stones,  placed,  as  Col. 
Wilks  believes,  on  the  solid  rock,  which  was  levelled  to  receive  them.  The  pedestal  is  a  single  stone,  nine  feet  high  and 
about  seven  feet  wide.  The  base  of  the  shaft  was  six  feet  in  diameter,  and  a  hole  about  three  inches  deep  was  cut  in  the 
top  of  the  pedestal  to  receive  it,  leaving  a  ledge  of  about  six  inches  on  each  side  between  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  and  the 
edge  of  the  pedestal.  In  the  judgment  of  Col.  Wilks,  the  shaft  is  not  more  than  sixty  feet  high,  but  he  adds  that  others, 
speaking  from  their  remembrance,  make  it  to  be  at  least  seventy  feet.  The  first  block  quarried  was  eighty-four  feet  long, 
but  after  it  had  been  moved  a  few  yards,  it  was  broken  by  an  explosion  of  gunpowder  which  was  intended  to  break  a 
detached  stone  which  stood  in  the  way. — From  the  plate  given  in  the  “  Philos.  Trans.,”  this  obelisk  tapers  more  rapidly  as  it 
ascends  than  is  the  case  with  any  Egyptian  obelisk. 


I49 


Quarrying ;  Transporting ,  Erecting  Obelisks . 

the  British  Museum.  Such  instances  as  these  we  must  believe  to  be  the  result  of  accident,  and  by 
no  means  indicate  the  usual  mode  of  procedure.  The  unfinished  obelisk  now  lying  in  the  quarries 
of  Assouan  is  evidence  that,  at  least  in  the  extraction  of  blocks  intended  as  obelisks,  the  under 
horizontal  surface  was  the  last  to  be  separated  from  its  native  rock,  and  we  conclude,  with  Wilkinson 
(vol.  ii,  p.  310),  that  in  cutting  under  this  lower  surface,  supports  of  the  native  rock  were  at  first 
left  at  regular  intervals ;  the  openings  which  had  been  excavated  between  these  supports  were  then 
filled  with  beams  of  wood  ;  last  of  all,  the  rock  supports  were  cut  away,  leaving  the  block  standing, 
without  a  jar  or  risk  of  fracture,  upon  the  beams. 

Both  Gau  and  Ebers  remark  upon  the  great  care  shown  by  the  Egyptian  workmen  that  the 
valuable  syenite  should  nowhere  be  cut  to  waste.  Gau  remarked  that  the  blocks  were  taken  from 
the  quarry  in  the  precise  shape  and  size  required.  “  The  economy,”  says  Ebers  (“  Caire  a  Philae,” 
p.  393),  “  with  which  they  divided  the  smaller  blocks  excited  our  admiration.  On  the  surface  of  a 
mass  of  stone,  cut  on  three  sides,  you  saw  the  tracing-line  of  the  master-workman,  who  intended 
to  cut  from  it  two  pillars  and  a  slab  for  roofing.” 

On  the  mode  of  removing  the  blocks  from  the  quarries,  the  following  may  be  of  interest.  At  the 
sandstone  quarries  of  Hagar  Silsileh,  or  Silsilis,  there  was  found  sculptured  on  the  rock  a  representa¬ 
tion  of  some  implements  employed  by  the  workmen.  Two  of  these  appear  to  be  wedges,  somewhat 
differing  in  shape.  The  other  exactly  resembles  in  form  the  modern  lewis ,  used  by  masons  for  raising 
stones  :  it  has  a  circular  top — which  might  be  a  kind  of  ring, — then  a  horizontal  bar  or  bolt,  while 
the  lower  part  is  a  truncated  triangle,  the  base  of  which  forms  the  lowest  part  of  the  instrument.  As 
these  quarries,  at  a  later  date,  were  worked  under  the  Macedonian  and  Roman  rule,  it  is  not  certain 
that  this  implement  is  of  Egyptian  construction.  (Long,  “Egypt.  Antiq.,”  vol.  i,  p.  360.) 

When  the  blocks  had  been  obtained  from  the  quarry,  they  were  then  cut  to  exact  form,  reduced 
to  a  smooth  surface  by  the  chisel,  and  then  polished  by  rubbing.  The  exactness  of  angle  to  which 
the  huge  stones  employed  in  the  Egyptian  buildings  were  cut,  the  perfect  jointing  of  contiguous  blocks, 
and  the  exquisite  finish  given  to  the  surface,  show  that  in  these  branches  of  the  mason’s  art,  the 
workmen  of  Pharaonic  times  have  never  been  surpassed.  The  immense  blocks  of  syenite  in  the  king’s 
chamber  in  the  Great  Pyramid  are  so  truly  and  so  closely  fitted  together  that  a  knife-blade  could 
not  be  forced  in  between  them.  This  sharp  and  accurate  cutting  of  the  hardest  stones  is  especially 
illustrated  in  their  sculpture  of  colossi  and  sarcophagi  of  syenite  and  basalt,  and  in  the  delicate  and 
minute  engraving  seen  in  the  best  specimens  of  hieroglyphs,  which  are  sometimes  cut  on  the  obelisk 
face  to  the  depth  of  two  inches,  yet  finished  with  the  perfection  of  gem-cutting. 

In  Wilkinson’s  “Manners  and  Customs,”  vol.  ii,  pp.  310,  311,  are  representations,  copied  from  the 
wall  paintings  of  Theban  tombs,  of  workmen  engaged  in  levelling  and  squaring  a  block  to  be  used  in 
building,  while  others,  raised  on  scaffoldings  around  a  colossal  statue,  are  cutting  upon  it  hieroglyphs 
and  giving  it  its  final  polish.  They  use  both  pointed  and  broad-edged  chisels.  The  perfect  polish  of 
the  faces  of  an  obelisk  contribute,  according  to  De  Roziere,  to  their  preservation,  since  the  glassy, 
smooth  surface  prevented  the  retention  of  moisture,  which,  acted  on  by  heat,  is  the  cause  of  the 
deterioration  of  the  stone.1 

In  a  paper  read  before  the  Royal  Society  in  1821,  is  mentioned  the  very  great  difficulty  of  repairing 

1  The  process  by  which  a  fine  polish  is  given  to  granite  by  the  Hindoo  workmen  of  to-day  is  described  as  follows  by 
Dr.  Kennedy  in  the  Edin.  Philos.  Journal,  vol.  iv,  p.  349  :  “  A  block  of  granite,  of  considerable  size,  is  rudely  fashioned 

into  the  shape  of  the  end  of  a  large  pestle.  The  lower  face  of  this  is  hollowed  out  into  a  cavity,  and  this  is  filled  with  a 
mass  composed  of  pounded  corundum  stone  mixed  with  melted  beeswax.  This  block  is  moved  by  means  of  two  pieces  of 
bamboo,  placed  one  on  each  side  of  its  neck,  and  bound  together  by  cords,  twisted  and  tightened  by  sticks.  The  weight 
of  the  whole  is  such  as  two  workmen  can  easily  manage.  They  seat  themselves  upon,  or  close  to,  the  stone  they  are  to 
polish,  and  by  moving  the  block  backwards  and  forwards  between  them,  the  polish  is  given  by  the  friction  of  the  mass  of 
wax  and  corundum.  The  beauty  of  the  glossy  blackness  thus  produced  is  equal  to  that  of  fine  marble,  and  the  polish  is 
almost  as  durable  as  is  the  stone  itself.” 


150  Quarrying,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 

one  of  the  Theban  statues  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  and  the  great  number  of  English-made 
tools  which  had  been  broken  in  replacing  one  of  its  arms.  Precisely  of  what  metal  the  Egyptian  tools 
were  made,  and  how  they  were  tempered  to  the  hardness  requisite  for  their  sharp  and  powerful  cutting, 
has  long  been  a  theme  for  wonder  and  for  much  learned  discussion. 

The  Egyptian  tools  were  of  bronze,  of  iron,  and,  in  all  probability,  of  steel. 

The  collections  of  Egyptian  antiquities  preserve  to  us  swords,  daggers,  carpenters’  tools  (see  chisel, 
saw,  etc.,  etc.,  figured  in  Wilkinson’s  “Manners  and  Customs,”  vol.  i,  p.  401),  and  even  chisels  for  cutting 
stone,  all  in  bronze.  The  use  of  bronze  for  such  implements  continued,  according  to  Wilkinson  (vol. 
ii,  p.  249),  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  long  after  the  period  when  iron  was  known. 

A  bronze  dagger,  preserved  in  the  Berlin  Museum  (Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  p.  212,  and  ii,  256  ;  Rawlinson, 
vol.  i,  p.  458),  is  so  finely  tempered  that  even  now,  after  the  thousands  of  years  since  it  came  from  the 
armorer’s  anvil  (it  was  hammered  and  peculiarly  alloyed,  Wilkinson),  it  still  springs  with  almost  the 
elasticity  of  steel.  A  bronze  chisel  was  found  by  Wilkinson  (vol.  ii,  p.  2  55)  as  it  had  been  dropped  by 
the  workman  among  the  chippings  of  limestone  rock  in  a  tomb  at  Thebes.  In  general,  its  form  is 
that  of  the  chisel  used  by  the  stone-cutter  of  to-day  :  it  is  nine  inches  long  ;  its  diameter  at  the 
top  is  one  inch  ;  its  point  is  seven  tenths  of  an  inch  in  its  greatest  width  ;  it  is  alloyed  with  five 
and  nine  tenth  parts  of  tin  in  one  hundred.  “  It  was  very  remarkable,”  says  Wilkinson,  “  that  its  top 
was  turned  over  by  the  blows  which  it  had  received  from  the  mallet,  while  its  point  was  intact,  as  if 

it  had  recently  left  the  hands  of  the  smith  who  made  it.”  Yet  he  adds  that  the  point  is  now  easily 

turned  by  striking  it  against  the  very  stone  it  was  made  to  cut. 

It  has  been  queried  by  Donaldson  and  others  whether  the  Egyptians,  working  with  such  tools, 

did  not,  by  the  use  of  some  chemical  agents,  first  soften  the  stone  which  they  were  to  cut;  or  whether 

the  stone  was  not  first  “stunned”  by  pounding,  so  that  it  might  more  easily  yield  to  the  chisel’s  edge; 
but,  according  to  Wilkinson  (vol.  ii,  p.  254),  these  suppositions  are  insufficient  to  account  for  the  facility 
and  efficiency  of  Egyptian  work.  He  conjectures  that  the  Egyptian  workman  must  have  dipped  his 
chisel  in  moistened  emery  powder,  and  by  its  aid  have  enabled  the  soft  tool  to  do  its  hard  work.  Yet 
even  this  supposition  of  his  own  does  not  appear  to  be  quite  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  he  adds  that 
unless  the  chisel’s  point  was  sheathed  with  steel,  we  must  confess  that  the  Egyptians  appear  to  have 
possessed  certain  secrets  for  hardening  or  tempering  bronze,  with  which  we  are  totally  unacquainted 
(Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  255). 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  stone-cutting  under  the  Pharaohs  could  have  been  accomplished 
with  tools  of  bronze.  The  use  of  bronze,  no  doubt,  preceded  the  use  of  iron  ;  but,  on  the  other 

hand,  it  is  certain  that  from  a  very  early  period,  iron  was  known  and  employed  by  the  Egyptians. 

Rawlinson  (“  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  94)  conjectures  that  iron  may  have  been  supplied  to  Lower  Egypt  from 
Phoenicia,  and  from  the  Upper  Nile,  where  it  abounds.  According  to  Brugsch,  meteoric  iron  was 
first  wrought  into  tools  ;  then  came  the  working  of  the  iron  mines  in  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula  and  in 
the  mountainous  district  between  the  Nile  and  the  Red  Sea.  The  ancient  mine  at  Hammami,  containing 
the  metal  in  the  form  of  specular  and  red  iron  ore,  is  especially  mentioned  by  Wilkinson. 

It  is  true  that  few  examples  of  iron  tools  have  been  discovered  in  ancient  Egypt.  But  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  implements  of  this  metal,  when  buried  in  that  nitrous  soil,  or  exposed  to  the 
oxidizing  air,  would,  in  so  many  centuries  become  decomposed  and  disappear. 

According  to  Herodotus  (ii,  12  5),  iron  tools  were  used  in  building  the  pyramids.  Among  the 
earliest  existing  specimens  of  this  metal  in  Egypt  may  be  mentioned  a  thin  piece  of  wrought  plate- 

iron,  found  in  one  of  the  air-passages  of  the  Great  Pyramid  ;  in  the  same  pyramid  have  been 

discovered  iron  clamps  which  maintain  a  granite  portcullis  in  its  position.  Later  examples  are  the  iron 
blade  of  a  falchion  found  beneath  a  sphinx  at  Karnak,  and  the  iron  blade  of  an  adze.  Inscriptions  of 
Thothmes  III,  according  to  Brugsch’s  translation,  distinctly  mention  the  use  of  iron. 


Quarrying ,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks.  15 1 

With  all  the  knowledge  and  improvements  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  is  an  arduous  task  to 
accomplish  with  our  modern  implements  what  the  old  Egyptians  accomplished  with  theirs.  The  French 
engineers  who  removed  the  obelisk  from  Luxor  found  it  a  difficult  labor  to  cut  a  space  less  than  two 
feet  deep  along  the  face  of  its  partially  decomposed  pedestal  (Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  253).  A  block  of 
syenite  soon  turns  the  edge  of  our  best  steel  tools.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  Egyptians 
were  as  well  acquainted  with  the  use  of  steel  as  we  are,  and  it  is  possible  that  they  possessed  some 
secret  of  tempering  bronze  which  we  have  not  as  yet  discovered.  In  the  paintings  on  the  walls  of  Theban 
tombs,  the  blue  color  given  to  the  blades  of  butchers’  knives,  to  some  of  the  weapons  of  Ramses  III, 
and  to  a  chisel  which  a  workman  is  represented  as  using  in  sculpturing  a  sphinx,  leads  Wilkinson  and 
others  to  conclude  that  the  implements  so  represented  were  made  of  steel. 

In  several  instances  we  have  occasion  to  compare  the  methods  of  Egyptian  workmen  with  those 
of  the  Hindoos.  From  whatever  source  the  Hindoo  workman  may  have  derived  his  arts,  they  have 
no  doubt  descended  to  him  unchanged  from  the  remotest  antiquity.  The  following  description,  by 
Dr.  Kennedy,  of  the  tools  employed  by  the  Hindoo  stone-cutter  of  to-day,  may  therefore  be  of  interest : 
“  The  tools  which  the  Hindoos  use,  are  a  small  steel  chisel  and  an  iron  mallet.  The  length  of  the 
chisel  is  not  more  than  about  twice  the  breadth  of  the  hand  of  the  Hindoo  workman,  which,  as  is 
well  known,  is  very  small ;  and  it  tapers  to  a  round  point,  like  a  drawing-pencil.  The  iron  mallet  is 
a  little  longer  than  the  chisel,  but  not  weighing  more  than  a  few  pounds.  Its  head  is  fixed  at  right 
angles  to  the  handle,  and  has  but  one  striking  face,  which  is  formed  into  a  tolerably  deep  hollow  and 
lined  with  lead  to  deaden  the  force  of  the  blow.  With  such  simple  instruments  they  formed,  fashioned, 
and  scarped  the  granite  rock  which  forms  the  tremendous  fortress  of  Dowlutabad,  and  excavated  the 
wonderful  caverns  of  Ellora ;  for  it  seems  by  no  means  probable  that  the  Hindoo  stone-cutters  ever 
worked  with  any  other  tools.” 

TRANSPORTATION. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Egyptian  records  throw  so  little  light  upon  the  transportation  and  erection 
of  obelisks.  Their  inscriptions  carefully  record  the  warlike  deeds  of  the  kings,  and  the  long  lists  of 
their  pious  gifts  to  the  temples  ;  they  recount  the  monarch’s  building  of  propylaea,  and  even  his  setting 
up  obelisks  in  front  of  them  ;  but  how  the  obelisks  were  removed,  how  they  were  erected,  we  are  never 
told.  The  paintings  in  the  tombs  depict  for  us,  with  such  wealth  of  illustration,  the  battles,  the  feastings, 
the  industrial  arts,  the  home  life,  the  funeral  rites  of  this  ancient  people,  that  it  seems  as  though  there 
could  be  nothing  Egyptian  which  was  left  unrevealed  to  us  ;  but  when  we  look  for  information  on  the 
transportation  and  erection  of  obelisks,  we  find,  as  yet,  almost  nothing.  The  celebrated  painting  of  the 
“  Colossus  on  a  Sledge,”  is  almost  the  only  guide  and  help  that  we  have. 

The  removal  of  these  enormous  monoliths  to  great  distances  must  have  been,  of  course,  by 
water.1  This  must  be  preceded  by  the  difficult  transportation  of  the  shaft  from  the  quarry  to  the 
river  bank ;  on  its  arrival  at  the  point  to  which  it  had  been  shipped,  there  was  a  second  and  a 
longer  transportation  by  land  to  the  temple  before  which  it  was  to  be  erected. 

The  Nile  was  the  great  highway  of  Egypt,  offering  the  easiest  of  all  communication,  following 
its  current  from  the  south  to  the  north  of  the  land.  And  hence  it  resulted,  as  is  remarked  by 
Lepsius,  that  although  in  Thebes  and  Lower  Egypt,  nothing  but  limestone  is  at  hand,  yet  sandstone 
and  syenite  were  employed  there  almost  as  freely  as  they  were  in  the  Upper  Egypt  where  they 
were  quarried. 

Boats  of  large  size  were  not  wanting  to  convey  these  enormous  weights.  Some  of  the  Egyptian 
war  vessels  had  twenty-two  oars  on  a  side-^  which,  according  to  Wilkinson  (vol.  i,  p.  276),  allowing 
for  bow  and  stern,  would  make  their  length  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  feet.  Diodorus 

1  Wilkinson  (vol.  ii,  p.  304)  states  that  although  small  blocks  of  stone  were  sent  by  water  to  their  place  of  destination, 
yet  blocks  of  very  large  dimensions  were  dragged  overland. 


152 


Quarrying ;  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 

mentions  a  sacred  boat  of  cedar,  dedicated  by  Sesostris  to  the  god  Amen  of  Thebes,  measuring  two 
hundred  and  eighty  cubits,  or  four  hundred  and  twenty  feet  in  length  (Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  211).  At 
a  later  period,  Ptolemy  Philopator  is  said  to  have  built  a  galley  of  forty  banks  of  oars,  two  hundred 
and  eighty  cubits  long  (Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  212).  It  is  probable,  however,  that  these  great  weights 
were  usually  carried  upon  rafts. 

The  inscriptions,  says  Brugsch  (vol.  i,  p.  75),  record  the  merit  of  high  officials  to  whom  were 
intrusted  the  responsible  task  of  superintending  the  removal  of  blocks  from  the  quarries,  and  their 
conveyance,  by  way  of  the  Nile,  to  the  pyramids  or  temples  where  they  were  to  be  employed.  In  the 
inscription  of  Una,  an  Egyptian  governor  under  the  vi  dynasty  (translated  by  Birch,  in  “  Records  of 
the  Past,”  vol.  ii,  p.  1),  he  recounts  the  transport  of  stones  for  the  pyramid  Shanefer,  erected  by  the 
King  Merenra,  in  six  boats  of  burthen  or  rafts,  three  towing  boats,  three  boats  of  eight  lengths,  and 
one  war  vessel.  Again,  for  the  transport  of  an  immense  stone,  he  says  :  “  I  made  for  it  a  boat  of 
burthen  (or  raft,  as  Brugsch  translates),  sixty  cubits  long  and  thirty  cubits  broad  ”  ;  that  is,  a  raft  one 
hundred  and  four  feet  long  and  fifty-two  feet  wide.  In  another  inscription  by  a  governor  and  chief 
architect  under  Amenhotep  III,  is  recorded  the  transportation,  by  the  Nile,  of  the  colossal  statues  of 
that  monarch :  “  I  caused  eight  ships  (probably  rafts)  to  be  built ;  the  statues  were  carried  on  the 
river.”  Brugsch,  “  Hist,  of  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  425. 

Many  conjectures  have  been  made  as  to  the  manner  of  removing  the  shaft  from  the  quarry  to  the 
raft.  Goguet  (“  Origine  des  Lois  ”)  supposes  that  a  canal  was  cut  from  the  river  to  a  point  imme¬ 
diately  below  the  quarried  shaft.  Zoega  objects  that  it  would  be  an  infinite  toil  so  to  cut  through  the 
syenite  river  bank  so  far  inland,  and  conjectures  instead  that  the  shaft,  placed  upon  such  a  “chamulcus” 
or  “  cradle  ”  as  Ammianus  Marcellinus  reports,  was  used  at  the  much  later  date  of  Constantius  for 
the  carriage  of  the  obelisk  (now  the  Lateran)  from  the  Tiber  into  Rome,  and  resting  on  rollers,  was 
drawn  by  capstans  down  an  inclined  bridge  of  strong  beams,  and  so  transferred  to  the  raft. 

If  we  turn  from  these  conjectures  to  the  only  positive  testimony  that  we  have,  that  is,  to  the 
testimony  of  the  inscriptions  and  to  that  of  the  painting  of  the  “  Colossus  on  a  Sledge,”  it  would  appear 
that  the  shaft,  placed  upon  a  sledge,  was  drawn  only  so  far  as  the  inundation  level,  where  it  was  left 
till  the  rising  of  the  Nile  should  allow  it  to  be  drawn  on  board  the  raft.  “  As  soon  as  the  water 
rose,”  says  the  inscription  of  Una,  as  quoted  by  Brugsch,  “  I  loaded  the  rafts  with  immense  pieces  of 
granite  for  the  pyramid.”  (Brugsch,  vol.  i,  p.  106.) 

In  two  inscriptions  quoted  by  Brugsch  (vol.  i,  pp.  1 1 3 ,  124),  great  blocks  cut  for  royal  sar¬ 
cophagi  in  the  valley  of  Hammamat  are  described  as  being  rolled  down  the  valley  to  the 
riverside. 

On  the  arrival  of  the  shaft  by  river  at  the  place  of  its  destination,  it  was  again  drawn  by 
sledge  to  the  spot  where  it  was  to  be  erected. 

The  only  representation  we  have  of  such  transportation  by  land  is  the  celebrated  painting,  before 
referred  to,  of  the  “  Colossus  on  a  Sledge.”  This  painting,  discovered  in  a  tomb  near  El  Bersheh,  is 

of  the  time  of  Usortesen  II,  xii  dynasty.  A  wood-cut  representing  this  painting  and  a  description  of 

it  will  be  found  in  Wilkinson’s  “  Manners,”  etc.,  vol.  ii,  p.  3<o5. 

The  weight  and  size  of  single  blocks  of  stone  transported  by  the  Egyptians  are  remarkably  great, 

as  well  as  the  distances  to  which  they  were  conveyed.  A  monolithic  chapel,  weighing  about  three 

hundred  and  fifty  tons,  removed  by  Amasis  from  Elephantine  to  Sals,  is  thus  described  by  Herodotus 
(bk.  ii,  ch.  175)  : 

What  I  admire  still  more  is  a  monument  of  a  single  block  of  stone,  which  Amasis  transported  from 
the  city  of  Elephantine.  Two  thousand  men,  of  the  class  of  boatmen,  were  employed  to  bring  it,  and  were 
occupied  three  years  in  this  arduous  task.  The  exterior  length  is  twenty-one  cubits  (thirty-one  and  a  half  feet), 
the  breadth  fourteen  (twenty-one  feet),  and  the  height  eight  (twelve  feet) ;  within,  it  measured  eighteen  cubits, 


i53 


Quarrying ,  Transporting ,  Erecting  Obelisks. 

twenty  digits  (twenty-eight  feet,  three  inches)  in  length,  twelve  cubits  (eighteen  feet)  in  breadth,  and  five  (seven 
and  a  half  feet)  in  height.  It  lies  near  the  entrance  of  the  temple,  not  having  been  admitted  into  the  building, 
in  consequence,  as  they  say,  of  the  engineer,  while  superintending  the  operation  of  dragging  it  forward,  having 
sighed  aloud,  as  if  exhausted  with  fatigue,  and  impatient  of  the  time  it  had  occupied  ;  which  being  looked 
upon  by  Amasis  as  a  bad  omen,  he  forbade  it  being  taken  any  farther.  Some,  however,  state  that  this  was 
in  consequence  of  a  man  having  been  crushed  beneath  it  while  moving  it  with  levers. 

A  similar  syenite  chapel  was  that  of  Tel-et-Mai,  the  external  dimensions  of  which  are  given  as 
twenty-one  feet,  nine  inches  in  height,  thirteen  feet  in  breadth,  and  eleven  feet,  seven  inches  in  depth. 
The  colossal  syenite  statue  of  Ramses  II,  at  the  Memnonium,  Thebes,  must  have  weighed  when  entire 
more  than  nine  hundred  tons.  It  was  transported  overland  a  distance  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight 
miles.  But  largest  of  all  was  the  monolithic  chapel,  “  each  wall  forty  cubits  (sixty  feet)  square,”  which 
is  recorded  by  Herodotus  (bk.  ii,  ch.  1 5 5)  to  have  been  brought  from  Elephantine  to  Buto,  in  the 
Delta  :  the  weight  of  this,  supposing  the  walls  to  have  been  only  six  feet  thick,  has  been  estimated 
at  over  5,ooo  tons.1 

According  to  Ebers  (“  Gaire  a  Philae,”  p.  272),  sledges  only  were  employed  for  the  transportation 
of  the  heaviest  weights,  and  these  drawn  by  human  strength  alone.  Criminals  condemned  to  the 
quarries  were  compelled  to  assist  in  moving  a  certain  number  of  stones;  the  man  of  greater  guilt  must 
tug  the  longer  and  the  harder.  An  inscription  mentioned  by  Ebers  (“Caire  a  Philae,”  p.  374),  cut  in 
the  breccia  quarries  of  Hammamat  (on  the  desert  track  leading  from  Keneh,  near  Thebes,  to  Kosseir,  on 
the  Red  Sea),  records  that  Ramses  IV  sent  to  these  quarries  a  party  of  8,665  men,  to  obtain  stone  for 
buildings  of  his  at  Thebes  :  of  these,  five  thousand  were  soldiers ;  two  thousand  were  men  to  draw 
the  stones  on  sledges,  with  eight  hundred  Aperiou  (either  Hebrews,  says  Ebers,  or  prisoners  of  war 
condemned  to  hard  labor).  Three  hundred  yoke  of  oxen  drew  chariots  or  wagons,  and  apparently  were 
not  used  in  dragging  the  stone-laden  sledges.  The  labor  of  drawing  the  heavily  weighted  sledges  across 
the  desert  cost  the  lives  of  nine  hundred  men. 

The  Seringapatam  obelisk,  mentioned  before,  was  placed  upon  a  low  frame  of  timber,  which  rested 
upon  eight  low  wheels  :  to  this  ropes  were  attached,  drawn  by  about  six  hundred  men  at  a  time.  The 
distance  from  the  quarry  to  the  site  of  the  obelisk’s  erection  was  about  two  miles.  Timbers  were  laid 
along  the  road,  to  prevent  the  sinking  of  the  low  wheels  in  the  earth. 

Beasts  of  burthen  were  little  used  for  the  transportation  of  these  great  weights.  Camels  appear 
to  have  been  used  only  for  the  transport  of  baggage  and  provisions.  Horses,  which  in  Solomon’s 
time  were  exported  from  Egypt,  were  unknown  in  the  early  period  of  Egyptian  history  ;  although  intro¬ 
duced  by  the  Hyksos,  they  are  not  represented  on  monuments  before  the  xviii  dynasty,  and  then  only 
as  attached  to  chariots.  Oxen  were  employed  to  draw  stones  of  small  size  :  in  the  limestone  quarries 
of  Masara  (from  these  quarries  and  those  of  Turra,  nearly  opposite  Memphis,  was  taken  the  ordinary 
stone  for  the  pyramids  of  Gizeh)  is  a  sculpture  representing  six  oxen  drawing  a  sledge,  on  which  is  a 
block  of  stone  measuring  eight  feet  by  four  feet  (Sharpe,  vol.  i,  p.  23  ;  Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  302). 

In  many  instances,  as  shown  by  the  “  Colossus  on  a  Sledge  ”  and  by  the  obelisk  still  in  the 
Assouan  quarries,  the  stone  was  cut  to  shape  before  transportation,  thus  lessening  the  weight ;  in  other 
instances,  e.  g.,  huge  blocks  lying  near  Assouan,  the  blocks  were  removed  in  the  rough. 

Of  the  mechanical  appliances  which  were  known  to  the  Egyptians  we  have  little  information  ; 
Rawlinson  (vol.  i,  308)  is  very  certain  that  no  levers  or  rollers  were  employed  to  facilitate  the  task  of 
transportation.  But  Herodotus,  in  his  account  of  the  removal  of  the  monolithic  chapel  to  Sais  (previously 
quoted),  expressly  mentions  the  use  of  levers.  Brugsch  (“  Hist,  of  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  73)  states  that 
the  stones  for  the  pyramids  of  Gizeh  were  drawn  upon  rollers  up  a  prepared  causeway  extending  from 
the  Nile  to  the  plateau  of  the  pyramids.  A  machine,  imperfectly  described  by  Herodotus  (bk.  ii,  ch. 

1  Donaldson  (in  Parker,  p.  35)  mentions  a  colossus  at  Koorneh,  Thebes,  fifty-seven  feet,  five  inches  high,  and  which, 
according  to  Mariette,  weighed  1,198  tons. 


154 


Quarrying,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 

125)  as  made  of  short  pieces  of  wood,  is  recorded  by  him  to  have  been  used,  in  the  building  of  the 

pyramids,  for  lifting  blocks  of  stone  from  one  step  or  tier  of  masonry  to  the  step  above  ;  Wilkinson 

(vol.  ii,  p.  309)  considers  this  to  have  been  a  sort  of  crane.  The  Egyptians,  according  to  Wilkinson 

(vol.  ii,  p.  305),  were  not  ignorant  of  the  pulley,  and,  in  his  opinion,  used  it  in  hoisting  sail.  (This 

has  been  much  doubted,  e.  g.,  by  Sharpe,  “Hist,  of  Egypt,”  vol.  i,  p.  44.)  A  pulley  has  been  found  in 
Egypt,  which  is  now  in  the  Museum  of  Leyden,  but  its  date  is  uncertain  ;  it  seems  to  have  been  used 

in  drawing  water  from  a  well  (Wilkinson,  vol.  ii,  p.  2  2  5).  The  single  mast  of  boats,  replacing  the  double 

mast  of  the  iv  dynasty,  had  bars  or  rollers  at  top,  which  served  as  pulleys,  and  over  which  the 

halliards  ran,  though  sometimes  they  ran  through  rings  at  the  mast-head  (Wilkinson,  vol.  i,  p.  276). 

ASSYRIAN  TRANSPORTATION. 

Of  the  transportation  of  heavy  blocks  of  stone  by  the  ancient  Assyrians,  some  records  are 
preserved.  The  first  is  that  of  the  not  very  reliable  Diodorus  Siculus,  who  tells  us  of  the  somewhat 
mythical  Queen  Semiramis,  that  she  had  quarried,  in  the  mountains  of  Armenia,  an  obelisk  one 

hundred  and  thirty  feet  long  and  twenty-five  feet  square  ;  this  was  drawn  by  many  teams  of  mules 
and  oxen  to  the  Euphrates,  placed  on  a  raft,  and  floated  down  to  Babylon,  to  which  city  the 
Assyrian  queen  is  said  to  have  transferred  her  court. 

A  very  interesting  series  of  sculptured  slabs,  discovered  by  Layard  at  Nineveh,  and  now  in  the 
British  Museum,  represents  the  removal  and  setting  in  place  of  colossal  stone  bulls,  under  the 
direction  of  Sennacherib  (B.  C.  704-676,  Oppert.).  A  huge  block  of  stone  is  seen  placed  on  a  low 
flat-bottomed  boat,  which  is  towed  on  the  river  by  cables  drawn  by  about  three  hundred  men. 
Again,  the  stone,  now  carved  into  a  colossal  bull,  is  seen  placed  on  a  sledge  drawn  by  men 

attached  to  four  cables.  Rollers  are  laid  beneath  the  sledge,  and  its  hinder  part  is  lifted  and  eased 

by  the  use  of  huge  levers.  Lastly,  the  sledge  is  drawn  up  an  inclined  plane  constructed  of  earth, 

and  the  colossus  is  set  in  its  place  (see  Layard’s  “Discoveries,”  p.  104  and  plates  10-17  ;  Bonomi’s 

“  Nineveh,”  p.  378). 

The  great  conqueror  Assurbanipal  (B.  C.  660-647,  Oppert :  the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks), 
in  his  second  campaign  in  Egypt,  captured  Thebes  and  removed  thence  many  treasures.  In  an 
inscription  by  this  monarch,  which  recounts  his  triumph  and  the  spoils  of  his  victory,  he  makes 
special  mention  of  two  obelisks  :  “  Two  lofty  obelisks,  covered  with  beautiful  carving,  I  removed  and 
brought  to  Assyria  ”  (George  Smith’s  “  Hist,  of  Assurbanipal,”  p.  54).  The  shafts  were  probably  drawn 
along  the  desert  track  from  Keneh  to  Kosseir,  on  the  Red  Sea,  thence  to  be  shipped  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Euphrates ;  but  no  record  informs  us  how  this  transport  was  effected. 

TRANSPORTATION  BY  PTOLEMY  PHILADELPHUS. 

In  the  prosperous  days  of  Alexandria  under  the  successors  of  Alexander  in  Egypt,  an  obelisk  was 
removed  to  that  city,  from  what  spot  we  are  not  told,  by  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (B.  C.  286-247  :  the 
patron  of  Manetho),  and  by  him  erected  at  the  Arsinoeum,  a  monument  which  he  had  built  to  the 
memory  of  his  favorite  sister  Arsinoe.  The  following  account  of  this  is  from  Pliny  (“  Nat.  Hist.,”  bk. 
xxxvi,  ch.  14)  : 

Ptolemseus  Philadelphus  had  an  obelisk  erected  at  Alexandria,  eighty  cubits  high,  which  had  been  prepared 
by  order  of  King  Necthebis;  it  was  without  any  inscription,  and  cost  far  more  trouble  in  its  carriage  and 
elevation  than  had  been  originally  expended  in  quarrying  it.  Some  writers  inform  us  that  it  was  conveyed  on  a 
raft  under  the  inspection  of  the  architect  Satyrus,  but  Callixenus  gives  the  name  of  Phoenix.  For  this  purpose,  a 
canal  was  dug  from  the  river  Nilus  to  the  spot  where  the  obelisk  lay;  and  two  broad  vessels,  laden  with  blocks 
of  similar  stone  a  foot  square,  the  cargo  of  each  amounting  to  double  the  size,  and,  consequently,  double  the 
weight  of  the  obelisk,  were  brought  beneath  it ;  the  extremities  of  the  obelisk  remaining  supported  by  the 
opposite  sides  of  the  canal.  The  blocks  of  stone  were  then  removed,  and  the  vessels,  being  thus  gradually 


1 55 


Quarrying,  Transporting ;  and  Erecting  Obelisks. 

lightened,  received  their  burden.  It  was  erected  on  a  base  of  six  square  blocks,  quarried  from  the  same  moun¬ 
tain,  and  the  architect  was  rewarded  with  the  sum  of  fifty  talents.  This  obelisk  was  placed  by  the  king  above- 
mentioned  in  the  Arsinoeum,  in  testimony  of  his  affection  for  his  wife  and  sister  Arsinoe.  At  a  later  period,  as 
it  was  found  to  be  an  inconvenience  to  the  docks,  Maximus,  the  then  Prefect  of  Egypt,  had  it  transferred  to  the 
Forum  there,  after  removing  the  summit  for  the  purpose  of  substituting  a  gilded  point;  an  intention  which  was 
ultimately  abandoned. 

This  Necthebis  of  Pliny,  according-  to  Wilkinson  (vol.  i,  p.  139),  is  Nectanebo,  B.  C.  378-364,  xxx 
dynasty.  Birch  (in  Parker,  p.  55),  considers  this  obelisk  to  be  that  of  Semenpserteus,  afterward 
removed  by  Augustus  to  Rome. 


ROMAN  TRANSPORTATION. 

Next  to  the  Egyptians  themselves  as  removers  of  obelisks,  the  Romans  occupy  the  most  important 
place.  It  was  the  glory  of  their  emperors  to  bring  the  spoils  of  conquered  foreign  countries  to  the  one 
centre  of  power  and  luxury — imperial  Rome.  Among  these  trophies  they  especially  prized  the  monoliths 
brought  from  before  the  portals  of  Egyptian  temples,  and  adorned  their  city  with  a  large  number  of 
these  captured  shafts.  The  treatise  on  Roman  topography  by  the  so-called  Publius  Victor  mentions  six 
obelisks  of  large  size,  besides  forty-two  of  smaller  dimensions,  as  existing  in  Rome  ;  but  the  authenticity 
of  this  book  is,  at  present,  seriously  questioned. 

The  following  extracts  from  Pliny  and  Ammianus  Marcellinus  are  our  only  records  of  Roman 
transportation. 

The  most  difficult  enterprise  of  all  was  the  carriage  of  these  obelisks  by  sea  to  Rome,  in  vessels  which  excited 
the  greatest  admiration.  Indeed,  the  late  Emperor  Augustus  consecrated  the  one  which  brought  over  the  first 
obelisk,  as  a  lasting  memorial  of  this  marvellous  undertaking,  in  the  docks  of  Puteoli ;  but  it  was  destroyed  by 
fire. — Pliny,  “Nat.  Hist.,”  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14. 

This  first  obelisk  transported  to  Rome  is  usually  identified  with  that  which  was  erected  by  Augustus 
in  the  Circus  Maximus, — the  present  obelisk  of  the  Piazza  del  Popolo. 

The  other  instance  of  Roman  transportation  mentioned  by  Pliny  is  the  removal,  by  the  Emperor 
Caius  Caligula,  of  the  shaft  now  known  as  the  Obelisk  of  the  Vatican. 

The  third  obelisk  at  Rome  is  in  the  Vaticanian  Circus,  which  was  constructed  by  the  emperors  Caius  and 
Nero;  this  being  the  only  one  of  them  all  that  has  been  broken  in  the  carriage.  Nuncoreus,  the  son  of  Sesoses; 
made  it.  As  to  the  vessel  in  which,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Caius,  the  other  obelisk  had  been  transported  to 
Rome,  after  having  been  preserved  for  some  years  and  looked  upon  as  the  most  wonderful  construction  ever 
beheld  upon  the  seas,  it  was  brought  to  Ostia,  by  order  of  the  late  Emperor  Claudius  ;  and  towers  of  Puteolan 
earth  being  first  erected  upon  it,  it  was  sunk  for  the  construction  of  the  harbor  which  he  was  making  there. 
There  was  a  fir,  too,  that  was  particularly  admired,  when  it  formed  the  mast  of  the  ship  which  brought  from 
Egypt,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Caius,  the  obelisk  that  was  erected  in  the  Vaticanian  Circus,  with  the  four  blocks 
of  stone  intended  for  its  base.  It  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  there  has  been  seen  nothing  on  the  sea  more 

wonderful  than  this  ship;  120,000  modii  of  lentils  formed  its  ballast;  and  the  length  of  it  took  up  the  greater 

part  of  the  left  side  of  the  harbor  at  Ostia.  It  was  sunk  at  that  spot  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Claudius, — 
three  moles,  each  as  high  as  a  tower,  being  built  upon  it ;  they  were  constructed  with  cement  which  the  same 
vessel  had  conveyed  from  Puteoli. — Pliny,  “Nat.  Hist.,”  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14,  15;  bk.  xvi,  ch.  76. 

This  account  of  the  sinking  of  the  ship  is  confirmed  by  Suetonius,  “  Vita  Claudii,”  ch.  20. 

Ammianus  Marcellinus  (bk.  xvii,  ch.  4)  records  as  follows  the  removal  of  the  obelisk  now  known  as 
the  Lateran,  first  by  Constantine  the  Great  as  far  as  Alexandria,  and  afterward  by  Constantius  to  Rome  : 

Because  the  flatterers,  who  were  continually  whispering  into  the  ear  of  Constantius,  kept  always  affirming 

that  when  Augustus  had  brought  two  obelisks  from  Heliopolis,  a  city  of  Egypt,  one  of  which  was  placed 

in  the  Circus  Maximus,  and  the  other  in  the  Campus  Martius,  he  yet  did  not  venture  to  touch  or  move  this 
one  which  has  just  been  brought  to  Rome,  being  alarmed  at  the  greatness  of  such  a  task ;  I  would  have 
those,  who  do  not  know  the  truth,  learn  that  the  ancient  emperor,  though  he  moved  several  obelisks,  left  this 


1 56 


Querying,  Transporting ;  Erecting  Obelisks. 

one  untouched,  because  it  was  especially  dedicated  to  the  Sun-god,  and  was  set  up  within  the  precincts  of  his 
magnificent  temple,  which  it  was  impious  to  profane ;  and  of  which  it  was  the  most  conspicuous  ornament.  But 
Constantinus,  deeming  that  a  consideration  of  no  importance,  had  it  torn  up  from  its  place,  and  thinking  rightly 
that  he  should  not  be  offering  any  insult  to  religion  if  he  removed  a  splendid  work  from  some  other  temple  to 
dedicate  it  to  the  gods  at  Rome,  which  is  the  temple  of  the  whole  world,  let  it  lie  on  the  ground  for  some 
time  while  arrangements  for  its  removal  were  being  prepared.  And  when  it  had  been  carried  down  the  Nile 
and  landed  at  Alexandria,  a  ship  of  a  burden  hitherto  unexampled,  requiring  three  hundred  rowers  to  propel  it, 
was  built  to  receive  it.  And  when  these  preparations  were  made,  and  after  the  aforenamed  emperor  had  died, 
the  enterprise  began  to  cool.  However,  after  a  time  it  was  at  last  put  on  board  ship,  and  conveyed  over  sea, 
and  up  the  stream  of  the  Tiber,  which  seemed  as  if  it  were  frightened,  lest  its  own  winding  waters  should 
hardly  be  equal  to  conveying  a  present  from  the  almost  unknown  Nile  to  the  walls  which  itself  cherished.  At 
last  the  obelisk  reached  the  village  of  Alexandria,  three  miles  from  the  city;  and  then  it  was  placed  in  a  cradle 
(or  sledge ;  chamulcus),  and  drawn  slowly  on,  and  brought  through  the  Ostian,  passing  by  the  Piscina  Publica, 
or  great  public  swimming-bath,  to  the  Circus  Maximus. 

ERECTION  OF  OBELISKS. 

The  testimony  from  Egyptian  sources  concerning  Egyptian  transportation  is  far  from  satisfactory  ; 
but  from  these  sources  we  learn,  as  yet,  absolutely  nothing  concerning  the  Egyptian  erection  of 
obelisks.  These  secrets  of  their  engineering  skill  have  remained,  to  this  day,  buried  with  them. 

The  Roman  writer  Pliny,  whose  entire  information  respecting  Egypt  appears  to  have  been  of  the 
most  vague  and  uncritical  kind,  mentions,  but  does  not  explain,  the  use  of  machinery  in  the  elevation 
of  an  obelisk  by  King  Rhamsesis  (presumably  Ramses),  but  the  evident  exaggeration  as  to  the  number 
of  men  employed  and  the  idle  fable  of  binding  the  monarch’s  son  to  the  shaft,  impair  the  value  of  his 
statement.  His  account  (“  Nat.  Hist.,”  bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14)  is  as  follows  : 

Rhamsesis,  who  was  reigning  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of  Troy,  erected  one  [an  obelisk]  one  hundred  and  forty 
cubits  [two  hundred  and  ten  feet]  high.  Having  quitted  the  spot  where  the  palace  of  Mnevis  [the  sacred  bull  of 
Heliopolis]  stood,  this  monarch  erected  another  obelisk,  one  hundred  and  twenty  cubits  [one  hundred  and  eighty 
feet]  in  height,  but  of  prodigious  thickness,  the  sides  being  no  less  than  eleven  cubits  [sixteen  feet,  six  inches] 
in  breadth.  It  is  said  that  120,000  men  were  employed  upon  this  work,  and  that  the  king,  when  it  was  on  the  point 
of  being  elevated,  being  apprehensive  that  the  machinery  employed  might  not  prove  strong  enough  for  the  weight, 
with  the  view  of  increasing  the  peril  that  might  be  entailed  by  the  want  of  precaution  on  the  part  of  the 
workmen,  had  his  own  son  fastened  to  the  summit,  in  order  that  the  safety  of  the  prince  might  at  the  same 
time  insure  the  safety  of  the  mass  of  stone.  It  was  in  his  admiration  of  this  work  that,  when  King  Cambyses 
took  the  city  by  storm,  and  the  conflagration  had  already  reached  the  very  foot  of  the  obelisk,  he  ordered  the  fire 
to  be  extinguished ;  entertaining  a  respect  for  this  stupendous  erection  which  he  had  not  entertained  for  the  city 
itself. 

Pliny  also  records,  but  without  the  least  explanation  how  the  task  was  accomplished,  the  elevation 
of  an  obelisk  at  Alexandria  by  the  Macedonian  ruler  of  Egypt,  Ptolemy  Philadelphus.  His  entire 
account  of  this  has  been  already  given. 

In  the  absence  of  any  positive  evidence  in  what  manner  the  Egyptians  erected  their  obelisks,  we 
can  only  submit  the  conjectures,  more  or  less  ingenious,  which  have  been  formed  upon  this  point. 

Sharpe,  in  his  “  Hist,  of  Egypt”  (vol.  i,  p.  44,  with  figures  from  Bonomi),  explains  this  much  more 
to  his  own  satisfaction  than  to  that  of  his  readers  :  “  If,”  he  says,  “  an  obelisk  ninety  feet  long,  or  a 
statue  fifty  feet  high,  was  to  be  placed  upright,  a  groove  or  notch  was  first  cut  in  the  pedestal  on  which 
it  was  to  stand,  so  that  while  it  was  being  raised,  one  edge  of  its  lower  end  might  turn  in  that  groove 
as  on  a  hinge.  The  obelisk  or  statue  was  then  brought  by  means  of  rollers  till  its  lower  end  rested 
over  this  groove,  and  then  its  head  was  lifted  up,  probably  by  means  of  a  mound  of  earth,  which  was 
raised  higher  and  higher  till  the  stone  which  leaned  on  it  was  set  up  on  end.”  There  is  something 
mysterious  in  this  conjecture,  for  it  does  not  explain  exactly  how  a  mound  of  earth  could  lift  up  an 
obelisk.  To  get  the  mound  under  the  obelisk  it  must  first  have  been  lifted  either  directly  or  indirectly. 
By  indirectly  is  meant  drawing  it  up  an  inclined  plain. 

Letronne,  quoting  Pliny’s  account  (book  xxxvi,  ch.  21)  of  the  raising  of  heavy  masses  forming  the 


i57 


Quarrying ;  Transporting ,  Erecting  Obelisks. 

architraves  of  the  temple  of  Ephesus,  states  that  the  architect  effected  it  by  means  of  bags  of  sand 
piled  to  form  an  inclined  plane  extending  beyond  the  capitals  of  the  columns.  The  architraves  were 
hauled  up  the  incline,  and  lowered  into  position  by  allowing  the  sand  to  run  out  of  the  bags.  Letronne 
conjectures  that  the  Egyptians  used  some  such  method  for  raising  the  architraves  of  the  Hall  of 
Columns  at  Karnak,  and  adapted  it  to  raising  obelisks.  Wilkinson  shows  that  the  obelisks  of 
Hatasou,  could  not  have  been  erected  by  any  form  of  inclined  plane,  as  the  narrow  court  in  which 
they  stood  antedated  their  erection. 

Cooper  conjectures  that  the  Egyptians  erected  their  obelisks  by  driving  under  them  rollers  of 
gradually  increasing  diameter.  He  describes  the  method  as  graphically  as  if  he  had  witnesssed  it  or 
discovered  some  sculpture  or  inscription  that  gave  it.  Diligent  search  by  the  author  and  by  others 
employed  expressly  for  the  purpose,  through  all  the  sources  of  information  available  for  examination,  has 
been  ineffectual  in  discovering  any  thing  that  would  warrant  such  a  conjecture. 

Zoega,  and  indeed  almost  all  modern  writers  on  obelisks  have  speculated  on  the  methods  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  for  erecting  them,  but  no  satisfactory  system  that  does  not  involve  the  application 
of  “  brute  force”  has  yet  been  suggested.  Rawlinson  says  (vol.  i,  p.  309)  :  “  The  raising  of  obelisks 
can  scarcely  have  been  managed  without  machines.  As  we  have  no  representations  or  descriptions  of 
them,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  their  character.  But,  at  any  rate,  they  were  such  that  works, 
difficult  of  execution  even  at  the  present  day,  were  accomplished  by  them.”  In  this  the  author  fully 
concurs.  The  development  of  the  Egyptian  mind  was  such  as  to  warrant  a  belief  in  their  knowledge 
of  applied  mathematics  and  mechanics.  The  genius  that  designed  the  pyramids  and  temples  could 
readily  have  devised  the  means  of  constructing  them  without  the  waste  of  life  and  power  involved  in 
the  crude  methods  some  writers  attribute  to  them.  “  Main  strength  and  stupidity,”  as  the  sailors  say, 
consume  time.  The  record  on  Queen  Hatasou’s  obelisks  is  proof  enough  that  the  time  occupied  in 
quarrying,  transporting,  and  erecting  them  would  not  have  been  sufficient,  unless  the  application  of 
power  involved  in  the  execution  of  the  work  was  at  least  equal  to  any  modern  application  of 
mechanical  force. 

Cooper  and  Sharpe  appear  to  have  had  in  mind  the  manner  of  erecting  the  Seringapatam  obelisk 
(before  referred  to),  as  described  by  Col.  Wilks  in  the  “  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Edin¬ 
burgh,”  vol.  ix. 

“  Conceive  the  shaft  finished,”  says  Col.  Wilks,  “  and  placed  ready  for  erection  in  a  horizontal  position, 
raised  to  the  proper  height,  and  with  its  base  accurately  placed  for  insertion  in  the  top  of  the  pedestal,  when 
it  should  attain  a  vertical  position.  Then  imagine  a  strong  wall,  built  at  right  angles  with  the  line  of  the 
shaft,  and  a  few  feet  beyond  its  smaller  end  ;  with  two  lateral  retaining  walls,  parallel  to  the  shaft,  and  a  fourth 
wall  of  smaller  elevation,  near  the  pedestal,  to  support  the  mass  of  earth  and  the  workmen  to  be  employed. 
On  such  a  platform,  raised  ten  and  a  half  feet,  you  will  first  conceive  the  shaft  to  be  horizontally  arranged. 

Two  lines  of  timber,  plank  or  balk,  were  then  ranged  along  the  two  sides  of  the  shaft,  to  serve  as  fulcra,  and 

two  lines  of  men  with  handspikes,  attended  by  others  with  chocks,  or  pieces  of  timber  of  different  thickness,  to 
be  inserted  under  the  shaft  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  elevation  of  the  smaller  end,  effected  by  the  hand¬ 
spikes,  and  distributing  the  pressure  so  equally  as  not  to  risk  the  accidents  which  would  otherwise  be  inevitable 
with  this  very  fragile  substance.  In  proportion  as  elevation  was  thus  gradually  obtained  for  the  smaller  end,  the 

space  below  was  filled  with  rammed  earth,  and  the  same  process  was  repeated  with  the  parallel  balks  of  timber, 

handspikes,  and  chocks  :  the  small  end  gradually  rising  at  each  successive  step,  the  wall  behind  increasing  in  height, 
and  an  inclined  plane  of  solid  earth  gradually  increasing  its  angle  with  the  horizon,  until  it  equalled  that  at  which 
solid  earth  could  with  safety  be  employed  :  when,  the  force  required  being  proportionally  diminished,  timber  alone 
was  employed  for  its  elevation.  Finally,  a  scaffolding  of  timber  was  erected,  embracing  three  sides  of  the  pedestal, 
and  nearly  equal  to  the  ultimate  height  of  the  obelisk :  ropes  were  applied  to  the  summit  of  the  shaft,  in  such 
directions  as  to  steady  and  check  it ;  handspikes  gave  the  requisite  impetus,  until  it  felt  the  power  of  the  ropes, 
and  was  ultimately  and  safely  lodged  in  its  shallow  receptacle.” 

Of  course  it  was  necessary  that  the  bottom  of  the  sunken  socket  in  which  the  shaft  was  to  stand, 
should  be  perfectly  level.  Colonel  Wilks  offered  to  test  this  by  a  spirit-level,  but  the  Hindoo  engineer 


tS8 


Quarrying ,  Transporting ;  Erecting  Obelisks. 

preferred  his  own  method  :  first  rubbing  the  surface  clean  and  dry,  he  dropped  on  it  a  little  water  ; 
the  portions  where  the  water  would  not  run  were  shown  to  be  too  high,  and  were  worked  down  with 
the  chisel  ;  the  repetition  of  this  process  at  last  produced  a  perfect  level. 

Of  the  erection  of  obelisks  by  the  ancient  Assyrians,  we  have  no  information.  The  setting  a 
colossal  bull  in  its  place,  as  shown  in  Layard’s  plates,  is  no  help  to  us  here.  The  inscription  that  tells 
us  that  Assurbanipal  brought  two  great  obelisks  from  Thebes  has  nothing  to  say  of  their  elevation  at 
Nineveh.  Two  obelisks  of  Assyrian  workmanship,  both  found  at  Nineveh,  are  now  preserved  in  the 
British  Museum  :  the  earlier  one  is  a  shaft  of  white  stone  bearing  the  name  of  King  Assurnasipal, 
and,  according  to  Philip  Smith  (“  Hist,  of  the  East,”  p.  283),  is  twelve  or  thirteen  feet  high,  with  a  base 
of  two  feet  by  about  fourteen  inches  ;  the  later  one  is  the  celebrated  “  Black  Obelisk,”  of  black  marble, 
by  Shalmaneser  II,  B.  C.  858-823:  its  dimensions,  according  to  Layard,  are  six  feet,  8^6  inches  high; 
base  of  shaft  one  foot,  11  Y\  inches  by  one  foot,  3^  inches.  Of  course,  the  erection  of  obelisks  of 
such  small  dimensions  presents  no  difficulty. 

Of  the  erection  of  obelisks  by  the  Romans,  we  have,  at  least,  some  information.  Although  Pliny 
here,  is  as  usual,  of  little  service,  yet  the  fuller  account  of  Ammianus  Marcellinus  and  the  bass-reliefs  on 
the  pedestal  of  the  obelisk  erected  by  Theodosius  at  Constantinople,  show  the  use  of  mechanical  helps 
corresponding,  in  good  degree,  with  those  employed  to-day. 

The  following  extract  from  Pliny  (bk.  xxxvi,  ch.  14)  simply  recounts  the  erection  of  two  obelisks 
at  Rome  by  Augustus  :  “  The  obelisk  that  was  erected  by  the  late  Emperor  Augustus  in  the  great 

circus  [the  present  obelisk  of  the  Piazza  del  Popolo]  was  originally  quarried  by  order  of  King 
Semenpserteus,  in  whose  reign  it  was  that  Pythagoras  visited  Egypt.  It  is  85^  feet  in  height, 
exclusive  of  the  base,  which  is  a  piece  of  the  same  stone.  The  one  that  he  erected  in  the  Campus 
Martius  [the  present  obelisk  of  Monte  Citorio]  is  nine  feet  less  in  height,  and  was  originally  made 
by  order  of  Sesothis.  They  are  both  of  them  covered  with  inscriptions,  which  interpret  the  operations 
of  nature  according  to  the  philosophy  of  the  Egyptians.” 

The  account  by  Ammianus  Marcellinus  of  the  removal  of  an  obelisk  [the  present  obelisk  of  the 
Lateran]  from  Alexandria  to  Rome,  under  the  Emperor  Constantius,  has  been  already  given.  The 
same  author’s  description  (bk.  xvii,  ch.  4)  of  its  erection  at  Rome  is  as  follows  :  “  The  only 
work  remaining  to  be  done  was  to  raise  it,  which  was  generally  believed  to  be  hardly,  if  at  all, 
practicable.  Vast  beams  having  been  raised  on  end  in  a  most  dangerous  manner,  so  that  they 
looked  like  a  grove  of  machines,  long  ropes  of  huge  size  were  fastened  to  them,  darkening  the  very 
sky  with  their  density,  as  they  formed  a  web  of  innumerable  threads  ;  and  into  them  the  great  stone 
itself,  covered  over  as  it  was  with  elements  of  writing,  was  bound,  and  gradually  raised  into  the 
empty  air,  and  long  suspended,  many  thousands  of  men  turning  it  round  and  round  like  a  millstone, 
till  it  was  at  last  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  square  ;  and  on  it  was  placed  a  brazen  sphere,  made 
brighter  with  plates  of  gold  ;  and  as  that  was  immediately  afterward  struck  by  lightning  and  destroyed, 
a  brazen  figure  like  a  torch  was  placed  on  it,  also  plated  with  gold,  to  look  as  if  the  torch  were  fully 
alight.” 

Peter  Gyllius,  referring  to  this  description  by  Ammianus,  is  reminded  by  it  of  the  taking  down 
from  its  pedestal  of  a  column  almost  as  large  as  the  Constantinople  obelisk.  This  he  saw  accomplished 
at  Constantinople  in  the  following  manner  :  “  Round  the  pillar,  though  at  some  distance  from  it,  they 
fixed  in  the  ground,  near  to  one  another,  large  poles,  much  taller  than  the  pillar,  at  an  equal  distance 
from  each  other.  At  the  top  of  these  poles  they  laid  others  across  them,  which  were  fastened  to  them 
in  the  strongest  manner,  and  to  which  were  fixed  the  pulleys  through  which  the  ropes  slipped,  which 
reached  from  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  of  the  pillar  to  the  top,  and  were  fastened  to  it.  The  ropes  were 
so  thick,  both  lengthways  and  crossways,  that  at  some  distance  the  scaffolding  looked  like  a  square 
tower.  There  were  many  capstans  on  all  sides,  which  were  turned  by  infinite  numbers  of  the  strongest 


Quarrying,  Transporting,  and  Erecting  Obelisks.  159 

youth,  till  they  had  moved  it  from  its  basis  and  laid  it  prostrate  upon  the  earth.”  (“  Ball’s  Translation 
of  P.  Gyllius,”  p.  106.) 

The  most  interesting  contribution  to  the  history  of  Roman  erection  of  obelisks  is  furnished  by  the 
bass-reliefs  sculptured  on  the  pedestal  of  the  Constantinople  obelisk,  which  commemorate  the  erection  of 
the  shaft  under  the  Emperor  Theodosius.  These  reliefs  were  first  described  by  Peter  Gyllius,  in  his 
“De  Constantinopoleos  Topographia,”  the  first  edition  of  which  was  published  in  i562.  The  reliefs  were 
first  drawn  and  published  by  Spon  and  Wheeler,  in  their  “  Voyage  d’  Italie,”  etc.,  en  1675  et  1676,” 
printed  at  Lyons  in  1678. 


This  is  a  faithful  reproduction  of  the  drawing  in  Spon  and  Wheeler,  as  copied  in  Montfaucon’s 
“  L’  Antiquite  Expliquee,”  vol.  iii,  pi.  187.  After  careful  comparison  of  the  original  engraving  with 
Montfaucon’s  copy,  the  latter  was  preferred  for  reproduction  here  because,  while  exact  in  every  detail, 
it  was  clearer  and  sharper  in  outline. 

The  plate  brings  together  the  reliefs  of  the  north  and  south  sides  of  the  pedestal.  In  its  lower 
portion  is  seen  the  relief  found  on  the  south  side  ;  it  represents  the  circus  after  the  erection  of  the 
obelisk.  Two  shafts  are  seen  standing  in  this  circus  :  the  one  is  probably  the  obelisk  as  erected  by 
Theodosius ;  and  the  other  a  shaft,  or  pillar,  formerly  covered  with  plates  of  brass  and  called  by 
Gyllius  a  “  structile  colossus.”  Near  the  centre  stands  the  superintendent  of  the  public  games  who 
reaches  out  a  crown  to  the  victor.  At  the  ends  are  the  two  goals. 

The  two  upper  portions  of  the  plate,  taken  from  the  north  side  of  the  pedestal,  are  intended  to 
represent  the  erection  of  the  obelisk.  The  following  is  Peter  Gyllius’  description  of  these  reliefs  : 
“  The  sculptures  on  the  north  side  stand  in  two  ranges,  the  lowermost  of  which  contains  eighteen  figures 
and  two  capstans,  which  are  turned  round  with  iron  crows  by  four  men  and  wind  the  ropes,  which  are 
drawn  through  pulleys,  round  the  capstan,  and  so  draw  the  obelisk  along  the  ground.  In  the  same 
range  is  engraved  the  obelisk  in  an  upright  posture,  as  it  now  stands,  with  three  figures,  one  of  which, 


160  Quarrying ;  Transporting ;  Erecting  Obelisks. 

as  the  inhabitants  tell  you,  represents  the  master,  and  the  other  the  servant,  whom  he  designs  to  correct 
(if  a  third  person  had  not  interposed)  because  he  had  erected  the  obelisk  in  his  absence.  In  the 
upper  range  are  also  figures  of  two  capstans,  with  the  same  number  of  men  working  them,  and  laboring 
with  those  below  them  to  drag  the  obelisk.  The  wreaths  of  the  ropes,  in  particular,  are  very  nicely  cut.” 
(“  Ball’s  Translation  of  Gyllius,”  p.  104.) 

Gyllius  has  here  failed  to  remark  the  fifth  man  at  each  capstan,  who  “  holds  back,”  or  keeps  tight, 
the  rope  as  it  is  hove  in.  The  prostrate  obelisk,  says  Zoega,  is  laid  upon  a  “  chamulcus,”  or  “  cradle,” 
— using,  to  describe  the  low  frame,  with  its  large  wheel,  on  which  the  obelisk  rests,  the  same  word 
which  Ammianus  Marcellinus  employs  in  his  account  of  the  transport  of  an  obelisk  from  the  Tiber 
bank  into  Rome  (the  present  Lateran  obelisk).  He  adds  that,  besides  the  spectators,  are  seen  two 
persons  standing  on  platforms,  perhaps  the  Emperor  Theodosius  and  the  Prefect  Proclus ;  also  that 
the  building  seen  behind  the  prostrate  obelisk  may  be  taken  as  the  barrier  of  the  circus. 

Two  inscriptions  upon  the  pedestal  record  the  erection  of  the  shaft  by  Theodosius.  They  were  first 
published  by  Gyllius.  At  Niebuhr’s  visit  to  Constantinople,  in  1761,  the  Greek  inscription  was  partly 
covered  with  earth.  Hobhouse  mentions  that  in  1810  the  fourth  and  fifth  lines  of  one  inscription 
were  no  longer  visible.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  two  inscriptions  differ  as  to  the  number  of  days 
required  for  the  task.  Gyllius’  copy  of  the  Latin  verses  says  thirty-two  days  :  but  both  the  Latin 
and  Greek  verses  are  here  printed  as  given  by  Zoega  (p.  55),  after  his  careful  examination  not  only  of 
Gyllius’  copy,  but  also  of  the  copies  made  by  later,  and,  as  he  believed,  more  accurate  observers. 

The  Greek  inscription,  which  is  on  the  west  side  of  the  pedestal,  runs  thus  : 

KIONA  TETPAIIAETPON  AEI  X0ONI  KEIMENON  AX0OC 
MOTNOC  ANACTHCAI  0ETAOCIOC  BACIAETC 
TOAMHCAC  nPOKAft  EIIEKEKAETO  KAI  TOCOC  ECTH 
KIS2N  HEAIOIC  EN  TPIAKONTA  ATO 

“  [This]  quadrilateral  column,  a  weight  continually  lying  on  the  ground,  King  Theodosius  alone 
having  ventured  to  erect,  gave  command  to  Proclus,  and  so  great  a  column  stood  erect  in  thirty-two 
days.” 

The  Latin  inscription  is  on  the  east  side  of  the  pedestal : 

DIFFICILIS  QVONDAM  DOMINIS  PARERE  SERENIS 
IVSSVS  ET  EXTINCTVS  PALMAM  PORTARE  TYRANNIS 
OMNIA  THEVDOSIO  CEDVNT  SOBOLIQVE  PERENNI 
TER  DENIS  SIC  VICTVS  EGO  DOMITVSQVE  DIEBVS 
IVDICE  SVB  PROCLO  SVPERAS  ELATVS  AD  AVRAS 

“  I  was  once  unwilling  to  obey  imperial  masters ;  but  was  ordered  to  bear  the  palm  after  [to 
commemorate  the  victory  over]  the  destruction  of  tyrants.  All  things  yield  to  Theudosius  and  his 
ever-during  offspring.  Thus  I  was  conquered  and  subdued  in  thirty  days,  and  elevated  towards  the 
sky  in  the  praetorship  of  Proclus.”  (Translation  in  Long’s  “Egypt.  Antiquities,”  vol.  i,  p.  331.) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  MATERIALS  AND  METALS  FOUND  WITH  THE  OBELISK  AT  ALEXANDRIA. 


ARRANGED  BY  PROFESSOR  PERSIFOR  FRAZER. 

THE  RED  SYENITE  GRANITE  OF  THE  SHAFT. 


THIS  rock  is  of  a  general  pinkish  hue  when  viewed  from  a  distance,  and  on  nearer  approach  reveals 
the  irregular  mottling  of  pink,  black,  and  white,  admirably  rendered  on  Plate  xliv,  Fig.  4.  It  is 
almost  impossible  to  render  by  a  flat  print  the  translucency,  or  that  effect  of  vividness  produced  by 
both  lustre  and  color,  but  the  attempt  here  is  a  very  close  approach  to  nature. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  one  is  the  freshness  and  soundness  of  the  rock.  No  mciladie  de 
granite  is  observable,  and  this  fact  will  answer  the  first  and  natural  question  as  to  why  this  rock  was 
so  much  preferred  by  the  Egyptians  for  monumental  purposes.  I  made  a  number  of  careful  deter¬ 
minations  of  its  specific  gravity,  first  in  lump,  as  more  applicable  to  questions  of  transportation,  and 
afterward  in  powder  to  determine  by  comparison  the  porosity  of  the  rock.  The  specific  gravity  of 
the  rock,  as  it  is,  i.  e.,  with  all  the  cavities  it  contains,  is  2.6618,  but,  broken  up  to  the  size  of  a 

pea,  the  quartz  pulverizes  except  in  the  interior  of  the  small  masses,  and  the  specific  gravity  becomes 

2.7188.  It  would  perhaps  rise  to  2.75  or  2.76  if  completely  pulverized,  but  this  can  have  no  bearing, 
unless  it  be  to  determine  in  this  way  approximately  how  much  of  the  desert  sand  is  composed  of 

the  old  granite  and  how  much  of  the  newer  and  generally  lighter  rocks.  A  cubic  foot  of  the  rock 

weighs  166.1625  pounds. 

An  independent  series  of  experiments,  made  in  1878  by  Professor  G.  W.  Wigner,  and  published 
in  the  Analyst ,  established  the  specific  gravity  of  the  syenite  at  2.682.  The  absorbent  power  of  the 
unchanged  stone  was  at  the  rate  of  about  7.8  grains  of  water  per  square  foot ;  the  weathered  surface 
showed  an  absorbent  power  six  times  as  great.  After  powdering  the  stone  and  separating  the  con¬ 
stituent  minerals  by  means  of  Sonstadt  solution,  there  were  found  of 


Mica  .....  2.986 

Quartz  .....  2.747 

Felspar  .....  2.595 


The  proportion  of  mica  varied  considerably  in  different  parts  of  the  stone.  The  stone  as  a  whole 
contained  : 


Silica  .....  68.18 

Iron  peroxide  .  .  .  .4.10 

Alumina  .....  16.20 
Lime  .  .  .  -  .  1.75 


Magnesia  .....  0.48 

Soda  .....  2.88 

Potash  .....  6.48 

Manganese  oxide  ....  trace 

161 


162 

Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals . 

The  felspar 

contained  : 

Silica 

63.38 

Magnesia 

O.45 

Iron  peroxide 

|  22.25 

Soda 

1.84 

Alumina 

Potash 

10.66 

Lime 

1.09 

• 

The  mica 

yielded  : 

Silica 

46.16 

Magnesia 

6.77 

Iron  peroxide 

7.30 

Soda 

0.92 

Alumina 

41.18 

Potash 

5.24 

Dr.  F.  A.  Genth,  Professor  of  Chemistry  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  has,  at  my  request, 
separated  under  the  microscope,  and  analyzed  the  felspar  of  this  granite  with  the  results  given  below. 
He  writes : 

Plagioclase  from  the  Granite  of  the  Obelisk . — White,  with  delicate  striation.  It  was  impossible  to 
obtain  it  entirely  free  from  quartz  and  in  sufficient  quantity  for  a  complete  analysis.  The  pieces  which 
I  could  pick  out  contained 

p.  c. 

Silicic  oxide  ............  66.70 

Aluminium  oxide  ...........  21.41 

Calcium  oxide  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .4.17 

These  percentages  indicate  the  plagioclase  to  be  orthoclase.  Calculating  from  the  calcium  oxide 
the  requisite  amount  of  aluminium  oxide  and  silicium  oxide  for  a  “  calcium  oligoclase,”  and  from  the 
remaining  aluminium  oxide  the  required  sodium  oxide  and  silicium  oxide  for  “  sodium  oligoclase,”  there 
are  in  one  hundred  parts  : — 


MIXTURE  OF  QUARTZ  AND  OLIGOCLASE. 

PURE  OLIGOCLASE. 

Quartz 

• 

.  9.87 

Silicium  oxide  . 

• 

.  56.26 

62.42 

Aluminium  oxide 

.  .  • 

.  21.41 

2375 

Calcium  oxide  . 

•  • 

.  4.I7 

4.62 

Sodium  oxide  . 

. 

.  8.30 

9.21 

IOO. 

IOO. 

A  specimen  of  this  granite  was  sent  to  Prof.  A.  J.  Julien,  who  made  three  thin  sections  of  it. 
Two  of  them  were  selected  for  representation,  together  with  a  thin  section  of  a  specimen  of  syenite 
from  near  Germantown  of  different  texture  for  comparison.  These  three  thin  sections  were  drawn  and 
painted  under  my  inspection  by  Mr.  Faber  from  their  images  in  the  polarizing  microscope,  and  after¬ 
ward  submitted  to  Dr.  Alfred  Steltzner,  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  Royal  Saxon  Mining  School  of 
Saxony.  The  following  is  his  report.  I  may  add  that  I  have  used  the  German  word  “  petrographer,” 

though  little  used  in  English,  because  no  equivalent  for  it  exists. 

ON  THE  BIOTITE-HOLDING  AMPHIBOLE-GRANITE  FROM  ASSOUAN  (SYENE). 

The  handsome  stone  of  which  the  ancient  Egyptians,  and  after  their  time  the  Romans,  made 
such  splendid  use  for  monumental  and  architectural  purposes,  is  known  to  day  in  commerce  as  “  red 
oriental  granite.”  We  have  valuable  information  concerning  its  occurrence,  among  others  from  Joseph 
Russegger.1  According  to  him,  the  “  oriental  granite  ”  forms  the  principal  mass  of  several  parallel 

chains  which  stretch  from  the  East  Egyptian  coast-range  (that  is  from  the  Red  Sea)  westward,  through 
Egypt  and  India,  and  only  on  the  other  side  of  the  Nile  in  the  Libyan  desert,  are  lost  under 

1  “Travels  in  Egypt,  Nubia,  and  the  East  Soudan,  with  especial  reference  to  the  natural  history  relations  of  the  respective 
countries  ;  undertaken  in  the  years  1836,  1837,  and  1838,”  vol.  ii,  part  i,  Stuttgart,  1843.  The  work  of  Roziere,  Descr. 
Mineral  de  la  Vallee  de  Kosseir,  in  the  “  Memoire  sur  1’  Egypte,”  iii,  p.  227,  was  unfortunately  inaccessible  to  me. 


Fit  2 


Fit  1 


II  Fabor  tie* 


Thin  seotion,  in  polarized  light, 
of  a  portion  of  the  Shaft  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tian  Obelisk  erected  in  Central  Parli, 
New  York. 

Magnified  35  diameters. 


I  I  tli'K 


XU  in  section,  in  polarized  liglit, 
of'  a  portion  of  tlie  Shaft  of  tUe  Egyp¬ 
tian  Obelisk  erected  in  Central  Park, 
N e w  York. 

Magnified  35  diameters. 


Fit  3 


HHH 


*  .« 

U/ 

XUin  seotion,  in  polarized  ligUt, 
of  a  Rook  near  German town ,  Phila* 
delphia,  magnified  35  diameters. 


Fit  4 


iii  .i,,.,  jf.K  T  3 hu lair 8  S<m  (  taomo-Btlt 

Fragment  of  the  Sliaft  of  tlie  Egyp¬ 
tian  Obelisk  in  Central  Parle,  New 
York;  natural  size  and  color. 


Analysts  of  Materials  attd  Metals.  163 

a  covering  of  more  recent  sedimentary  rocks.  Numerous  dykes  and  pockets  of  diorite  and  porphyry1 
intersect  these  granitoid  chains,  which,  in  consequence  of  more  or  less  deep-seated  weathering,  are 
covered  on  their  bald  and  knotty  surfaces  to  a  great  extent  with  rock-labyrinths  and  gigantic  blocks. 

Another  very  remarkable  phenomenon  in  which  Russegger  likewise  sees  a  kind  of  decomposition, 
the  result  of  a  long  exposure  to  the  combined  influence  of  the  water  and  the  atmosphere,  is  this, 
that  the  outside  of  the  granite  blocks,  and  of  the  granite  rock  itself  generally,  is  often  covered  with 
a  very  thin,  dark  black,  highly  lustrous  coating,  which  gives  it  the  appearance  of  having  been  painted 
over  with  pitch.  Russegger  reports  this  coating  as  so  thin,  and  so  intimately  mixed  with  the  mass 
of  the  rock,  that  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the  latter,  and  he  takes  this  material  to  be  ferrous  oxide. 

According  to  the  description  at  hand  the  structure  and  composition  of  the  “  oriental  granites  ” 
are  very  variable.  Coarsely  granular  varieties,  made  porphyritic  by  orthoclase  crystals  which  are 
distributed  without  regularity  in  the  main  mass,  seem  to  be  the  most  usual.  They  occur  immediately 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Assouan  (Syene).  Out  of  these  are  developed  locally  (for  instance  on  the 
road  along  the  cataracts  of  Assouan)  such  coarsely  granular  masses  that  the  individual  felspar  and 
quartz  constituents  reach  the  size  of  a  cubic  foot ;  in  other  places  the  size  of  the  grains  diminishes, 
and  then  there  results,  by  a  parallel  arrangement  of  the  scales  of  mica,  a  gneissoid  rock.  Among  the 
varieties  of  composition,  three  are  especially  given.  That  which  seems  to  be  most  widely  distributed 
is  an  amphibole-granite  containing  biotite,  in  the  composition  of  which  orthoclase,  oligoclase,  quartz, 
amphibole  and  biotite  take  part.  Some  of  the  principal  localities  for  this  are  the  old  quarries  near 
Assouan  and,  besides  this,  Djebel  Gareb  and  Djebel  Ezzeit.  This  principal  rock,  by  the  gradual 
diminution  of  its  amphibole,  either  merges  into  normal  biotite-granite,  which  may  be  either  rich  in 
mica  (east  side  of  the  hill  on  which  the  town  of  Assouan  is  built),  or  poor  in  mica  (Debu)  ;  or  it 
passes,  by  disappearance  of  its  quartz  and  the  predominance  of  its  amphibole,  into  normal  syenite. 
Russegger  satisfied  himself,  in  various  localities,  that  one  of  these  rock  varieties  developed  itself  very 
gradually  out  of  the  other,  and  in  such  a  way  that,  in  the  mountain  chain  of  the  cataracts  of  Assouan, 
he  was  not  able  to  separate  one  from  another.  Also,  on  the  east  edge  of  the  “  Waddi  el  Hammer  ” 
he  observed  that  the  granite  became  fine-grained,  and  by  visible  diminution  of  the  quartz  passed  into 
syenite  ;  the  latter  seems  generally  to  become  more  frequent  toward  the  east. 

In  the  above  lines  I  have  used  for  the  varieties  of  rocks  those  names  which  at  present  are  more 
common  among  German  petrographers  ;  nevertheless,  as  these  names  until  recently,  and  perhaps  even 
now,  have  not  won  universal  acceptance,  and  as  the  different  appellations  of  the  rocks  under  consid¬ 
eration  are  derived  from  just  the  above-indicated  variations  which  are  to  be  observed  in  Egypt,  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  introduce  a  few  historical  remarks. 

A.  G.  Werner,  the  founder  of  the  present  geology,  defined  with  precision,  for  the  first  time,  the 
nearly  arbitrarily  employed  names  of  rocks.  In  his  “  Short  Classification  and  Description  of  the  Different 
Kinds  of  Rocks”  Dresden,  1787,  he  defines  granite  as  a  “mixed  rock,  which  consists  of  felspar,  quartz, 
and  mica,  which  are  so  united  together  in  a  granular  network,  that  every  part  of  the  mixture  pene¬ 
trates  and  is  attached  to  the  rest.” 2 *  In  the  following  paragraph  he  describes,  in  conformity  with 
the  above  definition,  “  a  kind  of  granite  which  appears  to  be  a  particular  species  of  rock,”  because  it 
contains  hornblende  in  its  mass,  partly  together  with  mica,- partly  in  place  of  mica.  “  If  a  more  general 
occurrence  of  this  species  of  rock  (which  at  first  was  only  known  near  Dresden  and  in  the  eastern  part 
of  Saxony — Oberlanditz)  should  be  proved,  a  special  name  must  be  given  to  it,  and  it  might  be  called 
greenstone.”  Shortly  afterward,  it  appeared  that  these  rocks,  rich  in  hornblende,  had  quite  a  wide  distri- 

1  Among  the  porphyries,  the  most  interesting  is  that  of  “  Dochbel  Dohan,”  or  the  “  Mons  Porphyrites  ”  of  the  ancients, 
which  produces  the  beautiful  red  porphyry  (porfido  rosso  antico)  which  was  widely  spread  over  the  entire  old  classic  world. 
Russegger,  /.  c.  35 J~ 356- 

2  “  Welche  in  einem  Kornigen  Gewebe  so  mit  einander  verbunden  sind  dass  ein  jeder  Theil  des  Gemenges  in  und  mit 

dem  Anderen  verwachen  ist.”  Werner,  “  Klassification  und  Berschreibung  der  verschieden  Gebirgsarten,”  Dresden,  1787. 


1 64 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals . 

bution,  and  Werner  himself  even  became  acquainted  with  them,  for  example,  from  Upper  Egypt.  This 
latter  circumstance  evidently  caused  him  to  deviate  again  from  his  original  proposition,  and  to  give  to 
this  hornblende-carrying  granite  the  name  of  syenite,  which  already  was  employed  by  Pliny  (xxxvi.  13).1 
Werner,  therefore,  understood  by  syenite  mixtures  of  felspar  and  hornblende  both  with  and  without 
quartz.  As,  however,  in  the  further  development  of  petrography,  a  sharper  division  between  the  acidic 
and  basic  rocks  proved  to  be  desirable,  the  German  geologists  designated  the  quartzose  varieties  of 
Werner’s  “  syenite  ”  as  syenitic-granite  or  amphibole-granite,  and  used  the  name  syenite  exclusively  for 
the  mixture  of  orthoclase  and  hornblende  free  from  quartz.  This  to-day  is,  in  Germany,  the  usual 
terminology.  Roziere  followed  a  different  course.  He  believed  that  the  name  of  syenite  must  be  given 
to  that  rock  which  is  found  near  the  cataracts  of  the  old  Syene  (Assouan),  and  in  which  the  old 
Egyptians  had  located  their  great  quarries.  But  this  stone,  as  was  mentioned  above,  contains  quartz. 
For  its  corresponding  modification  which  was  free  from  quartz,  Roziere  proposed  the  name  sinaite, 
because  in  the  meantime  it  had  transpired  that,  along  with  others,  this  variety  occurs  on  Mount 
Sinai.  The  French,  English,  and  North  American  geologists  for  a  long  time  followed  at  least  the  first 
suggestion  of  Roziere,  and  have  generally  called  the  “  amphibole-granite  ”  of  the  Germans  syenite  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  second  proposition  of  Roziere  has  nowhere  received  any  continuous  acceptance 2 ;  the 
felspar,  hornblende  mixtures  free  from  quartz  have  been  called  sometimes  diorites  and  sometimes 
greenstones,  by  the  French,  English,  and  North  American  petrographers,  without  particular  regard  to 
the  monoclinic  or  triclinic  character  of  their  felspar.3  Thus  a  very  unfortunate  confusion  arose,  which 
until  recently,  has  shown  no  signs  of  abatement,  and  now,  it  must  be  said,  by  a  tendency  in  favor  of  the 
German  terminology.  I  follow  here  this  latter,  and  need  fear  no  misunderstanding  if  I  again  mention 
that  in  Upper  Egypt  amphibole-granite  is  the  predominating  rock,  but  that  both  biotite-granite  and 
syenite  are  found  there.  The  amphibole-granite  was  employed  with  especial  preference  by  the 
Egyptians  for  ornamental  and  architectural  purposes ;  according  to  Delesse,  the  inside  and  outside 
linings4  of  the  great  pyramids  of  Cheops  consist  of  it,  as  well  as  the  numerous  sphinxes  and  sar¬ 
cophagi,  Pompey’s  Pillar,  the  sacred  monolith  of  Sals,  and  the  obelisks. 

We  have  an  extremely  careful  description  of  this  Egyptian  amphibole-granite  (syenite  of  Roziere) 
from  the  distinguished  French  geologist,  A.  Delesse. 

As  the  New  York  obelisk  is  cut  from  this  rock,  I  consider  it  desirable  to  give  the  more  important 
observations  of  Delesse  concerning  it. 

According  to  him,  the  rock  consists  of  quartz,  orthoclase,  oligoclase,  mica,  and  often  also  of  horn¬ 
blende.5 

The  quartz  is  translucent  and  gray ;  it  has  occasionally  a  somewhat  violet  or  smoky  gray  tint,  which,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  quartz  of  protogine,  is  derived  from  a  small  quantity  of  organic  matter.  The  orthoclase  has  a 
beautiful  bright  red,  red,  or  yellowish-red  color,  which  reminds  one  of  the  coloration  of  the  orthoclase  in  the 
syenite  of  the  Vosges,  but  is  much  brighter;  it  forms  crystals  of  several  centimetres  in  length, — twins,  as  in  the 
case  of  granite  rocks ;  it  generally  is  the  most  prominent  constituent  of  the  mixture,  is  very  often  the  mineral 
most  largely  represented,  and  generally  gives  the  rock  its  reddish  color.  (See  Plate  xliv,  Fig.  4.) 

Delesse  found  the  specific  gravity  to  be  2.568. 

At  a  red  heat  it  loses  only  0.35  p.  c.  This  loss  is  very  little,  as  is  generally  the  case  with  orthoclase.  When 
the  felspar  decomposes,  it  sometimes  assumes  a  brown  color,  which  is  due  to  a  little  manganese  oxide  contained 
in  it  and  which  is  set  free.  The  triclinic  felspar  has  not  a  greasy  lustre  as  in  the  syenite  of  the  Vosges,  and 

1  Kohler,  Bergmannishes  journal  1788,  ii,  824. 

2  As  little  has  the  name  hyposyenite,  proposed  by  Dana  for  a  mixture  of  orthoclase  and  hornblende  free  from  quartz, 
been  able  to  graft  itself  on  the  terminology. 

8  D.  Forbes,  “The  Study  of  Chemical  Geology,”  London,  1868,  10. 

4  In  Delesse’s  original  Memoire,”  cited  elsewhere,  only  the  inside  of  the  pyramid  is  mentioned. — P.  F. 

1  Delesse  on  the  light  red  syenite  from  Egypt,  in  Karsten’s  and  Deehen’s  Archiv  for  Mineralogy ,  Geology ,  Mining ,  and 
Metallurgy,  Berlin,  1851,  xxiv,  63,  70. 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals.  165 

appears  to  be  oligoclase;  it  is  commonly  white,  sometimes  it  is  yellowish,  or  even  greenish,  as,  for  instance,  in 
some  specimens  from  Syene,  in  which  it  occurs  very  largely  and  even  exceeds  the  orthoclase  in  quantity.  The 
mica,  rich  in  magnesia  and  iron,  forms  brilliant  scales  of  mostly  black  color,  but,  according  to  Roziere,  is  also 
sometimes  brown  and  green.  When  its  color  is  black,  it  is  not  distinguishable  from  that  of  the  hornblendes 
which  is  often  united  with  the  mica.1  Also  some  pyrite  and,  as  in  all  hornblende-granites,  some  magnetite  occur 
in  it.  Garnet  is  found  in  it  (but  very  infrequently)  of  a  dark  brown  color  and  crystallized  in  the  usual  form  of 
the  rhombic  dodecahedron. 

According  to  his  method,  described  in  the  Annates  des  Mines  (4me  serie,  t.  xiii,  p.  379),  Delesse 
determined  the  relative  volumes  of  the  different  minerals  which  appeared  on  the  surface  of  a  polished 
fragment,  and  found  red  orthoclase  forty-three  per  cent. ;  gray  quartz  forty-four  per  cent. ;  white  oligo¬ 
clase  nine  per  cent. ;  black  mica  four  per  cent.  “  This  piece,  which  was  very  rich  in  quartz,  seemed 
to  contain  no  hornblende  ;  it  contained,  notwithstanding,  less  orthoclase  and  especially  less  mica  than 
from  its  appearance  would  have  been  supposed  ;  furthermore,  this  optical  deception  is  general  and  is 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  the  minerals  which  possess  bright  and  lustrous  colors,  like  the  bright 
red  felspar  and  especially  the  mica,  attract  the  attention  much  more  than  the  quartz  of  gray  or  dull 
color.”  Delesse  undertook  an  analysis  of  an  Egyptian  granite,  by  grinding  up  a  large  piece  from  the 
Egyptian  Museum  of  the  Louvre,  which  M.  Dubois,  one  of  the  Conservators,  had  placed  at  his  disposal ; 
it  exhibited  the  same  characteristics  as  those  mentioned  above,  but  some  hornblende  was  observable  in 
it.  Delesse  found  the  following  constituents  : 


B.  C. 

Silicon  oxide  (Si.02)  ..........  70.25 

Aluminium  oxide  (A1203)  .........  16.00 

Oxide  of  iron,  containing  manganese  .......  2.50 

Lime  (Ca.O) . 1.60 

Alkalies  and  magnesia  (by  loss)  ........  9.00 

Loss  by  incineration  ..........  .65 

Total  ............  100.00 


Delesse  thus  summarizes  the  result  of  his  investigations  :  “  It  appears  that  the  chemical  constitution 
of  the  Egyptian  syenite  does  not  vary  in  important  respects  from  that  which  I  have  found  for  several 
granites  ;  as  it  contains  a  great  deal  of  quartz,  it  can  be  regarded  as  a  hornblende-granite,  or  as  a  rock 
species  which  forms  a  transition  from  the  granite  family  to  the  syenite  family.” 

This  result  therefore  corresponds  perfectly  with  the  nomenclature  usual  in  Germany,  and  also 
with  that  which  I  set  forth  at  the  commencement  of  this  paper. 

At  the  time  that  M.  Delesse  wrote  the  above  remarks,  the  microscope  had  not  yet  established  its 
home  on  the  work-table  of  the  petrographer.  I  have  carefully  examined  the  thin  sections  which 
were  made  from  the  rock  of  the  New  York  obelisk  which  Professor  Frazer  handed  me.  The  results 
which  have  been  obtained  by  the  employment  of  this  new  method  of  research,  and  which  I  give  in 
the  following  lines,  may  be  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  remarks  of  the  French  savant. 

At  the  first  glance  under  the  microscope  it  is  apparent  that  the  biotite-holding  amphibole-granite 
of  Syene  has  a  thoroughly  crystalline  granular  structure.  Its  principal  components,  however,  are 
crystals  imperfectly  developed  on  every  side,  generally  in  the  form  of  fragments ;  even  for  these, 
Werner’s  description  holds  perfectly  good,  that  “every  part  of  the  mixture  penetrates  and  is  attached  to 
the  rest.” 

As  an  exception,  two  small  and  isolated  parts  of  one  of  the  sections  show  somewhat  a 
granitophyre  structure, — an  extremely  fine  permeation  of  felspar  and  quartz-like  graphic-granite. 

1  Russegger,  whose  communications  on  the  rock  of  the  quarries  of  Syene  (Assouan)  agree  well  with  those  of  Delesse,  says  : 
“  Hornblende  forms  an  accessory  constituent,  with  the  increase  of  which  the  mica  decreases  and  the  familiar  transition  into 
syenite  is  established.”  Hornblende  and  biotite  can  thus  replace  each  other. 


1 66  Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 

The  essential  elements  of  the  rock  are  microcline,  oligoclase,  quartz,  and  amphibole,  with  which 
some  biotite  is  associated. 

The  microcline  is  the  constituent  mentioned  by  Delesse  as  red  orthoclase.  It  is  very  fresh  and  free 
from  interpositions  ;  between  the  crossed  Nicols  it  shows  in  an  exceptionally  beautiful  manner,  in  the 
sections  parallel  to  the  basal  plane,  the  “grating”  structure  dependent  upon  its  peculiar  lamellar  construc¬ 
tion.  On  those  sections  which  are  parallel  to  the  brachypinacoid  a  simpler  flame  structure  is  observable. 

Plate  xliv,  Figs,  i  and  2  give  a  good  idea  of  the  splendid  bright  picture  which  the  observer  of 
these  thin  sections  obtains  in  the  polarizing  microscope.  The  oligoclase  shows  on  its  basal  sections, 
in  contrast  to  the  microcline,  only  one  fine,  but  very  apparent  twin  striation  parallel  to  the  edge  PM 
(see  Fig.  2,  right  hand  lower  part).  It  is  also  free  from  interpositions,  but  less  fresh  than  the 
microcline,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  clefts  which  intersect  it,  has  a  “  mealy  ”  opacity.  That  this  is 
really  oligoclase,  Delesse  had  already  made  probable,  and  the  analyses  of  Professor  F.  A.  Genth  add 
additional  confirmation  to  this  hypothesis. 

Some  isolated  grains  of  felspar  have  become,  in  consequence  of  advancing  decomposition, 
perfectly  opaque.  Whether  these  also  are  to  be  reckoned  as  plagioclase,  or  whether  they  are  to 
be  considered  as  orthoclase,  I  am  not  able  to  decide  from  the  two  sections  before  me. 

The  quartz  occurs  partly  in  large  individual  grains,  partly  in  fine-grained  aggregates.  These 
latter  have  the  form  of  veins,  and  cross  between  the  fragmentary^  shattered,  larger  felspar  and  quartz 
constituents.  There  is  therefore  here  the  mortar  structure  described  by  Toernebom  as  occurring  in 
the  Swedish  granites,  and  which,  according  to  his  view,  is  characteristic  of  the  oldest,  but  is  wanting 
in  the  later  granites.1  The  larger  quartz  grains  belonging  to  the  first  separation  are  irregularly 
shaped,  as  has  been  already  remarked.  They  contain  a  considerable  number  of  fluid  cavities,  which 
to  a  certain  extent  are  arranged  in  the  well-known  cloud-like  zones.  The  bubbles  of  the  larger 
liquid  inclusions  are  immovable ;  those  of  the  smaller,  on  the  other  hand,  show  invariably  a  greater 
or  less  movement.  Besides  this,  the  quartz  contains  a  few  small  reddish  translucent  scales  ol 
hematite  (either  hexagonal  or  distorted  to  rhombs) ;  also  in  one  of  its  grains  numerous  hair-like 
black  needles  lying  confusedly  over  each  other  are  to  be  seen.  In  ordinary  light  the  sections  of  the 
quartz  grains  are  clear  as  water,  but  between  crossed  Nicols,  they  shine  in  monochromatic  bright  colors 
(Fig.  2,  below). 

In  one  of  the  two  thin  sections  under  consideration,  there  is  accidentally  a  quartz  grain  which 
has  been  cut  parallel  to  its  base.  This  remains  in  all  horizontal  positions  dark,  and  shows  a  very 
perceptible  interference  cross  when  the  eye-piece  is  pulled  out. 

The  Hornblende  occurs  in  prismatic,  but  otherwise  irregularly  defined  individuals.  It  is  quite 
fresh  and,  in  ordinary  light,  green  and  translucent.  Tested  with  one  Nicol,  it  shows  in  the  direction 
of  the  axis  of  elasticity  c  a  very  powerful  absorption. 

The  slight  obliquity  of  the  position  of  extinction  to  the  prismatic  edges  (the  axis  c )  and  the  very 
apparent,  obtuse  angles  of  the  cleavage  lines  characterize  this  mineral  in  an  exceptionally  perfect 
manner. 

Biotite  occurs  in  single  large  brown  translucent  scales.  The  transverse  sections  show  the  usual 
lamellar  structure  and,  by  the  employment  of  one  Nicol  prism,  the  strong  absorption  of  the  ordinary 
ray,  of  which  the  vibrations  are  perpendicular  to  c. 

Besides  the  above-considered  essential  constituents  in  the  composition  of  the  rock,  the  following 
accessory  minerals  also  associate  themselves  in  it,  though,  it  must  be  confessed,  in  a  very  subordinate 
manner.  Of  primary  origin  :  titanite,  apatite,  magnetite,  and  zircon.  Garnet  and  pyrite,  mentioned 
by  Delesse,  are  not  contained  in  the  sections  before  me. 

1  Naagra  or  dom  granit  och  gneiss  in  Geol.  Foeren  i  Stockholm.  Foerh.,  Bd.  v,  233.  An  excerpt  from  this  in  the 
Nencs  Jahrbuch  fur  Mi?ieralogie>  1881,  ii,  50. 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals.  167 

Titanite  is  found  in  both  sections  in  numerous  small  yellowish-red  translucent  grains,  which,  together 
with  a  very  pure  constitution,  show  an  irregular  outline. 

The  apatite  occurs  in  excessively  fine  water-clear  acicular  crystals. 

The  magnetite  appears  in  the  form  of  opaque,  partly  irregularly  bounded,  and  partly  octahedrally 
crystallized  grains. 

Finally,  there  are  four  small  crystals  of  zircon  in  one  section  and  six  in  the  other.  When  they 
lie  parallel  to  the  plane  of  their  section,  one  can  convince  one’s  self  that  they  are  of  prismatic 
habit,  and  that  both  poles  are  terminated  by  pyramidal  planes ;  in  other  positions,  one  sees  small 
square  transverse  sections.  The  little  prisms  are  0.13  to  0.16  mm.  long,  and  have  diameters  of  from 
0.03  to  o.o5  mm. 

Secondary  formations  are  almost  entirely  wanting  in  the  sections  before  me ;  in  only  two  places 
appear  a  little  viridite  and  yellowish-green  translucent  needles  of  pislazite.  The  rock  of  the  Needle 
can  therefore  be  regarded  as  unusually  fresh  and  healthy  in  spite  of  the  honorable  age  which  it 
possesses. 

Amphibole-granites  which  have  a  like,  or  at  least  a  similar  constitution  to  that  of  Syene,  are 
rocks  of  frequent  occurrence  ;  thus,  amongst  others,  Ferdinand  Zirkel  has  made  known  numerous 
American  localities  :  as,  for  example,  from  the  north  end  of  the  Truckee  Range ;  from  the  Pah-tson 
Mountains  ;  from  Agate  Pass ;  Cortez  Range  ;  Egan  Canon,  Nevada ;  Cottonwood  Canon  in  the 
Wahsatch  Range,  etc.;  and,  moreover,  according  to  the  determination  which  Clarence  King  and  his 
associated  geologists  have  set  up,  they  appear  at  all  these  points  to  be  later  eruptive  rocks.1 

In  Europe,  •  rocks  of  the  kind  under  discussion  are  known,  for  instance,  from  Odenwald,  from  the 
Vosges,  and  from  Scandinavia. 

Since  F.  Zirkel2  with  reference  to  the  North  American,  and  H.  Rosenbusch3  with  regard  to  the 
European  amphibole-granites,  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  all  these  amphibole-granites 
contain  titanite  so  constantly  that  this  latter  should  be  reckoned  as  one  of  their  characteristic  accessory 
constituents,  it  is  not  without  interest  to  observe  that  the  Egyptian  rock  conforms  to  the  experience 
gained  elsewhere. 

Professor  Frazer  has  added  to  the  plates  of  thin  sections  from  the  monolith,  a  third,  prepared 
from  a  rock  in  the  vicinity  of  Germantown,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  I  have  also  examined  this 
section,  and  must  confess  that,  as  regards  the  nature  of  its  constituents,  the  Germantown  rock  is 
very  similar  to  that  from  Syene,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  differs  from  it  by  a  somewhat  different  rela¬ 
tion  to  each  other  of  the  constituents,  and  also  in  its  more  finely  granular  structure. 

In  conclusion,  the  following  is  a  short  diagnosis  of  the  Germantown  amphibole-granite  (or  amphi- 
bole-gneiss),  of  which  a  colored  representation  in  polarized  light  is  given  in  Plate  x,  Fig.  3.  Its 
essential  constituents  are  microcline,  plagioclase,  orthoclase  (?),  quartz,  hornblende,  biotite,  and  some 
muscovite. 

The  microcline  and  plagioclase  are  both  still  very  fresh,  the  separate  felspar  grains  which 
show  no  twin  striation  may  possibly  be  orthoclase.  Quartz  occurs  only  in  rounded  grains,  and  much 
more  sparsely  than  in  the  Egyptian  rock.  It  is  almost  free  from  interpositions  ;  even  fluid  bubbles  are 
only  to  be  observed  in  certain  places,  and  exhibit  very  small  dimensions.  The  green  translucent  horn¬ 
blende  is  in  greater  quantity  than  the  brown  biotite  ;  in  addition  to  which,  also,  large  isolated  scales 
of  muscovite  and  very  fine  scales  of  a  green  micaceous  mineral  are  observable.  Among  the  accessory 
constituents  of  the  rock  from  Germantown  must  be  mentioned  also,  here  again  in  the  front  rank, 
titanite,  though  in  this  case  it  occurs  in  numerous  small  rounded  crystals.  Finally,  there  are  in  the 
section  before  me  a  couple  of  very  small  prismatic  crystals,  which  in  consequence  of  their  high  refractive 


1  F.  Zirkel,  “Microscopical  Petrography  in  the  U.  S.  Geological  Exploration  of  the  Fortieth  Parallel,”  Washington,  1876.  39. 

2  L.  c.,  58.  3H.  Rosenbusch,  “Microscopical  Physiography  of  the  Massive  Rocks,”  Stuttgart,  1877,  22. 


1 68 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 

power  for  light,  I  should  again  take  for  zircons.  Magnetite  or  particles  of  other  ore  are  entirely  absent 
from  the  Germantown  rock,  so  far  as  I  can  judge. 

Mit  der  Uebersetzung  ganz  einverstanden. 

Freiberg,  December  14,  1881.  A.  STELZNER. 

According  to  the  geologists  Roziere,  Newbold,  Russegger,  d’  Hericourt,  and  Frass,  the  limestone 
which  forms  the  bluffs  near  Cairo  and  lines  the  Nile  is  “  above  the  chalk.”  Its  true  position  in  the 
series  is  more  definitely  defined  by  the  last-named  traveller,  who  pronounces  it  of  eocene  age.  Dr. 
Genth  called  my  attention  to  a  fossil  taken  from  a  part  of  “  Specimen  2  ”  of  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe’s 
series,  and  which  was  kindly  identified  by  Dr.  Joseph  Leidy  as  a  mummulite,  in  which  view  geheimrath 
Dr.  Geinitz,  of  the  Royal  Saxon  Natural  History  Museum  in  the  Dresden  Zwinger,  concurred.  Its 
geological  age  is  thus  well  known,  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  state  the  particular  quarry  whence  it 
was  taken ;  but  as  there  are  so  many,  the  source  of  this  one  was  probably  one  of  the  nearest  quarries 
to  Heliopolis.  Professor  Robert  H.  Richards,  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  to  whom  a 
specimen  was  referred,  says:  “The  specimen”  (No.  2  of  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe’s  numbers),  weighing 
about  fifty  grains,  proved  to  be  a  very  compact  limestone  containing  occasional  crystals  of  transparent 
calcite,  varying  from  one  mm.  square  downward.  The  compact  portion  appeared  to  be  almost  flint-like 
in  texture.  No  fossils  were  detected,  although  there  were  some  markings  and  variations  of  color  which 
seemed  to  suggest  the  possibility  of  organic  remains  that  would  be  distinguished  in  other  parts  of  the 
rock.  The  color  of  this  sample  varies  somewhat  from  pure  white,  and  may  be  described  as  slightly 
buff-colored.  Examination  with  the  microscope  revealed  nothing  especially  noteworthy  in  regard  to  the 
structure.  The  specific  gravity  of  this  sample  is  2.6208.  A  fragment  yielded  to  analysis  : 


p.  c. 

Calcium  carbonate  ..........  99.62 

Magnesium  carbonate  .........  .27 

Ferric  oxide  ...........  trace 

Residue  (insoluble  in  acid)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .18 


100.07 

If  this  remarkable  purity  of  composition  characterized  the  rock  of  the  entire  quarry,  the  Egyptians 
had  a  treasure  of  which  they  doubtless  knew  the  value. 

Mortars  and  Cements. — There  are  two  kinds  of  mortar  or  cement  in  which  the  steps  of  the  obelisk 
were  laid,  and  which  are  represented  by  the  numbers  in  the  series  of  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  as 
Nos.  3  and  4.  Besides  these,  there  is  another  cement,  of  which  only  an  extremely  small  portion  was 

i 

obtained,  but  with  which  an  important  archaeological  question  was  connected,- — the  cement  of  the  pyra- 
midion. 

The  first  of  these,  “  No.  3— -Samples  of  mortar  in  which  all  the  steps  and  the  pieces  enclosed 
were  laid,  except  the  one  piece  in  the  east  angle.”  This  sample  was  sent  to  Prof.  R.  H.  Richards  for 
examination.  He  says  :  “  The  sample  weighed  about  fifty  grains,  and  proved  to  be  a  very  soft,  white, 
friable,  chalk-like  substance,  quite  porous,  and  pitted  with  little  depressions.  It  contained  some  splinters 
of  wood  which  did  not  seem  to  be  an  essential  ingredient  of  the  mass.  Under  the  microscope  the 
powder  and  fragments  gave  the  usual  indications  of  gypsum.  Chemical  analysis  showed  the  powder 


to  be  composed  of : — 

p.  c. 

“  Calcium  carbonate  ..........  12.91 

Calcium  sulphate  ...........  69.36 

Silicious  residue  ...........  2.69 

Ferric  oxide  ............  .63 

Water  (loss  just  below  redness) . 13.42 


99.01 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Adetals. 


“  This  material  seems  therefore  to  be  an  impure  plaster  of  Paris.  The  calcium  carbonate  may 
perhaps  have  been  purposely  added  with  the  intention  of  hardening  the  plaster,  and  in  this  way  making 
it  more  durable.” 

The  same  chemist  thus  reports  the  result  of  his  investigation  of  “  No.  4,  the  yellow  cement  in 
which  the  corner-,  or  standard  of  measure  stone  was  laid,”  and  alongside  of  his  analysis  is  placed  one  of 
the  same  material  by  Leonard  P.  Kinnicutt.  Prof.  Richards  says  :  Of  this  sample,  about  twenty 
grams  were  received  for  examination.  It  was  very  friable,  crumbling  to  sand  in  the  hands,  and  was 
of  a  dark  yellowish  color.  An  analysis  of  this  cement  was  made  with  the  following  results  : — 


Silica  as  quartz  sand 
Calcium  carbonate 

Ferric  oxide 

Calcium  sulphate  . 
Water  . 


PER  CENT. 

RICHARDS.  KINNICUTT.1 


86.16 

87.25 

Silica  as  Si03 

9.89 

5.02 

Carbonic  acid  as  C03 

2.05 

1.52 

j  Iron  as  Fe303 
{  Aluminium  as  A1303 

1.83 

5-90 

Calcium  as  CaO 

trace 

0.36 

Magnesium  as  MgO 

99-93  100.05 

Prof.  Richards  adds  :  “  It  seems  therefore  to  have  been  a  lime  mortar  containing  a  very  high  rate  of 
sand,  the  lime  being  present  in  such  small  quantity  as  scarcely  to  cement  the  grains  of  sand  together. 

“  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  will  unquestionably  explain  the  reason  for  desiring  to  know  whether 
in  the  cement  which  remained  attached  to  the  pyramidion,  or  small  pyramid,  surmounting  the  shaft 
of  the  obelisk  there  were  to  be  found  any  traces  of  gold  or  of  copper.1 2  A  qualitative  examination 
made  in  my  own  laboratory  with  this  question  above  in  view  gave  negative  results,  but  for  greater 
certainty,  in  view  of  the  importance  which  Lieut.-Com.  Gorringe  attached  to  it,  a  specimen  was  sent 
to  Dr.  F.  A.  Genth,  whose  report  on  it  here  follows. 

“  ‘  Fragments  of  a  grayish-white  color,  consisting  of  a  mechanical  mixture  of  a  grayish-white  earthy 
material,  and  more  compact  scale-like  particles  attached  to  quartz  with  little  felspar  and  hornblende. 
A  qualitative  examination  showed  that  the  earthy  matter  was  mostly  calcium  carbonate ;  there  were 
also  present  in  the  cement  considerable  quantities  of  calcium  phosphate,  hydrous  calcium  sulphate,  and 
hydrous  silicates  of  aluminium,  iron,  magnesium,  calcium,  sodium,  and  potassium,  together  with  a  small 
quantity  of  a  brownish  tarry  or  resinous  matter  soluble 
the  mixture  served  for  the  analysis,  which  gave  : — 

“  Quartz,  felspar,  and  hornblende 

Silicic  acid  ...... 

Phosphoric  acid  ..... 

Sulphuric  acid  ..... 

Carbonic  acid  ...... 

Cupric  oxide  ..... 

Ferric  oxide  ...... 

Manganic  oxide  ..... 

Alumina  ....... 

Magnesia  ...... 

Lime . 

Soda  ....... 

Potash  ....... 

Organic  matter,  water,  etc . 

100.00  ” 


alcohol.  Only  a  little  over  one  gram  of 

p.  c. 

.  13.98 

. 479 

4.70 

. 1.98 

12.58 

. 0.04 

2.01 

. 0.16 

3.81 

. 2.02 

.  32.95 

. 0.44 

0.36 

. 20.18 


1  Mr.  Kinnicutt’s  analysis  was  furnished  me  by  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  without  further  explanation  than  the  above 
table  affords. 

2  To  determine  whether  or  not  the  pyramidion  had  been  gilded  or  covered  with  bronze,  traces  of  which  would  certainly 
have  been  detected  if  it  had  been. — h.  h.  g. 


I  70 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 


“It  is  remarkable  that  bone  ash  as  well  as  gypsum  have  been  used  by  the  old  Egyptians  in 
the  preparation  of  this  cement.  Calculating  from  this  analysis,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done,  the  principal 
components  of  this  cement,  we  find  it  to  contain  : — 

p.  c. 


“Quartz,  etc.  ...........  13.98 

Calcium  carbonate  (CaC03)  ........  28.59 

Calcium  phosphate  (Ca3P208)  ........  10.26 

Hydrous  calcium  sulphate  (CaS04  +  2  HsO)  ....  4.25 

Water,  organic  matter,  etc. . 19-29,  etc.” 


It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  these  results  render  it  very  clear  that  so  far  as  the  material 
furnished  for  examination  was  concerned,  there  was  no  evidence  of  either  gold  or  copper  having  been 
attached  to  it  at  a  previous  period.  The  very  slight  trace  of  the  latter  metal — four  hundredths  of 
one  per  cent. — is  an  amount  of  impurity  which  is  too  insignificant  to  lend  support  to  the  opposite 
hypothesis.  Parts  of  one  of  the  iron  clamp  dogs  (No.  5  in  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe’s  list)  were 
submitted  by  him  to  officers  of  the  U.  S.  Ordnance  for  physical  and  chemical  tests,  and  the  results 
given  to  me  for  embodiment  in  this  chapter.  No  comment  is  necessary  on  this  fine  piece  of  work, 
and  I  have  simply  taken  the  liberty  of  introducing,  in  italics,  into  the  list  of  substances  determined  by 
Captain  Butler’s  analysis,  others  found  by  the  analysis  of  Dr.  Wendel  for  Mr.  A.  L.  Holley,  in  order 
that  the  two  may  be  compared.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  constituent  to  which  Captain  Butler  in 
a  foot-note  attributes  the  high  temperature  necessary  to  forge  this  iron  is  entirely  wanting  in  the 
analysis  of  Dr.  Wendel  (arsenic). 

It  would  be  very  interesting  to  know  more  of  the  history  of  the  production  of  that  iron,  and 

especially  to  have  authentic  information  as  to  its  age,1  for  while  we  have  abundant  testimony  as  to 

the  existence  of  mines  and  furnaces  in  the  times  of  the  Egyptians,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of 
Egyptologists  has  doubted  their  possession  of  iron.  Mr.  Holley,  in  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New 
York  World ,  says  of  this  iron  : 

Our  friend,  Mr.  Fred.  E.  Church,  lately  handed  me  a  piece  of  iron  found  under  our  Egyptian  obelisk,  and 

asked  me  to  report  to  you  about  its  quality  and  the  probable  method  of  its  manufacture.  The  specimen  was 

too  small  for  any  physical  test  whatever.  A  clean  fracture  revealed  to  the  expert  eye  a  rather  highly  carbonized 
and  granular  but  tough-looking  metal,  not  unlike  what  is  called  puddled  steel.  I  sent  the  specimen  to  Dr. 
Wendel,  the  able  chemist  of  the  Albany  and  Rensselaer  Iron  and  Steel  Works,  who  took  such  an  interest  in 
the  matter  that  he  made  the  following  very  complete  analysis.2  If  we  had  not  known  from  the  general 
history  of  the  iron  manufacture  that  the  specimen  must  have  been  made  by  the  Catalan  process,  the  analysis 
would  have  so  indicated.  The  notable  facts  are :  about  a  half  per  cent,  of  carbon,  giving  the  hardness  of  ordinary 
rail  steel  ;  very  low  silicon  and  phosphorus,  due  to  the  method  of  manufacture  ;  and  a  remarkably  large  amount 
of  calcium,  indicating  the  plentiful  use  of  lime  as  a  flux  in  the  process.  The  small  amount  of  slag  (for  a 
Catalan  product)  as  well  as  the  fine  fracture  indicate  frequent  reworking,  etc.,  etc. 

This  fragment  was  a  part  of  one  of  the  iron  dogs  used  for  clamping  the  stones  of  the  steps  together. 

The  following  is  the  report  of  Captain  J.  G.  Butler,  U.  S.  A.,  on  the  same  material  : 


Watertown  Arsenal,  May ,  20,  1881. 

Submitted  for  mechanical  test  by  Major  Clifton  Comly  per  Captain  J.  G.  Butler  on  the  Emery  Testing 
Machine,  one  iron  clamp  dog  used  in  foundation  of  obelisk  in  Egypt. 

Clamp  Dog  (see  Plate  xi) :  About  10  inches  long,  1  inch  wide,  %  inch  thick,  partly  encased  in  lead,  and  flaked 
with  rust. 

Cut  off  one  end,  forged  it  to  a  point ;  tried  to  harden  it  by  plunging  it  red-hot  into  water.  Would  not 
harden.  Cut  off  other  end  and  forged  into  a  ring  at  third  attempt,  at  a  much  higher  heat  than  necessary  or 
proper  for  wrought  iron3  (probably  the  effect  of  copper,  which  is  apparently  incorporated  mechanically,  judging  by 
appearance  only  of  copperish  streaks  and  spots,  which  appeared  more  distinctly  when  the  specimen  was  large  than 
when  reduced.) 

1  The  information  on  this  point  is  authentic.  The  age  of  the  iron  in  1882  is  1904  years.  The  doubting^Egyptologist 

may  profit  by  reading  Chapter  I  “  Steel,”  by  J.  S.  Jeans.  1880.  (h.  h.  g.) 

2  See  analysis  at  the  end  of  Captain  Butler’s  paper. 

2  Appended  analysis  shows  this  effect  to  have  been  due  probably  to  arsenic. 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals .  171 

In  order  to  adapt  the  specimen  to  the  machine  it  was  necessary  to  apply  the  ends  to  “  holders  ”  by  means 
screw  threads,  hence  two  specimens  were  cut  out  of  the  dog  as  shown  below. 


mm 

DIAM0:‘273 

wm 

6,r 

MAM.0!'213 

The  above  figures  represent  one  of  the  two  specimens  A  and  B,  cut  from  the  dog,  as  below. 


Specimen  A 


Specimen  B 


SPECIMEN  A - DIAMETER,  O  .273. 

ELONGATION,  SET,  AND  BREAKING  WEIGHT  OF  FOREGOING  SPECIMEN  OF  OBELISK  IRON  OR  ALLOY. 


Strain 

Load 

Gauge 

Elongatior 

applied. 

per  □  in. 

reading. 

per  inch. 

292 

5,000 

.0426 

.OOOOOO 

468 

8,000 

.043 

.000078 

585 

10,000 

5, ooo 

.0432 

.0425 

.000117 

702 

12,000 

.0436 

.000194 

877 

15,000 

5,000 

.0442 

.0425 

.000311 

1,053 

18,000 

.0450 

.000467 

1,170 

20,000 

5,000 

•0455 

.0425 

.000565 

1,228 

21,000 

.0456 

.000584 

1,287 

22,000 

.0460 

.000662 

B345 

23,000 

.0461 

.000681 

1,404 

24,000 

.0462 

.000701 

1,462 

25,000 

.0465 

.000760 

i,521 

26,000 

.0466 

CO 

O 

O 

O 

i,579 

27,000 

.0468 

.000818 

1,638 

28,000 

.0470 

.000856 

1,696 

29,000 

•0473 

.000914 

I,755 

30,000 

5,000 

•0475 

.0430 

.000954 

1,813 

3booo 

.0480 

.00105 1 

1,872 

32,000 

.0485 

.001149 

1,93° 

33,ooo 

.0488 

.001206 

1,989 

34,000 

.0490 

.001245 

2,047 

35,00° 

.0492 

.001284 

2,106 

36,000 

.0496 

.001362 

2,164 

37,ooo 

•0525 

.001933 

2,223 

38,000 

.0596 

.003304 

2,340 

40,000 

.0980 

.010698 

3,190 

54.530 

.OI4199 

Set 

per  inch. 


.000019 


.000019 


.000019 


.000078 


U 

d 

3 

a 

d 

<D 

3 

4-> 

o 

d 

i-. 


Broke. 


Diameter 

56.6  <fo. 


at  fracture,  o'^iS;  area,  C.0254C]";  contraction  of  area, 


SPECIMEN  B - DIAMETER,  0".274. 

ELONGATION,  SET,  AND  BREAKING  WEIGHT  OF  FOREGOING  SPECIMEN  OF  OBELISK. 


Strain 

Load 

Gauge 

Elongation 

applied. 

per  □  in. 

reading. 

per  inch. 

295 

5,000 

.0700 

.OOOOOO 

59° 

10,000 

.0710 

.000194 

885 

15,000 

.0722 

.000428 

1,180 

20,000 

•°73° 

.000584 

B475 

25,000 

.0740 

.000778 

1,770 

^0,000 

5, ooo 

•°755 

.0712 

.001070 

1,829 

31,000 

.0762 

.001206 

1,888 

32,000 

•°775 

.001459 

B947 

33,000 

.0786 

.001673 

2,006 

34,000 

.0960 

.005057 

2,065 

2,780 

35, °°° 

47,120 

.1 100 

b 

0 

*^1 

*^1 

00 

0 

Set 

per  inch. 


.000233 


.010503 


rt  <u  0 
no  £  ~ 
<u  .5 

OSjO 
Pl  ^ 
-  ”  « 
X  rt 
<D  . 
tn  bC-CP 

Mg 


<D 


in 

3 

O 

u 


fp 

in 

<L> 

y-i 

3 


?!  ~  .= 

«  rS  ^  <u 

a,  ^  : ti  3  y 

<u  «  be  q  2 

^  O  C  rj  h 

£  "  L- 


<=>  «  5  n 


Broke. 


Diameter 
area,  46.8 


at  fracture  about  o".2o  ;  area,  0.0314  □  contraction  of 


1 72 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 


In  the  foregoing  specimens  wherever  there  appeared  a  flaw  or  seam  there  was  oxidation. 

A  proper  grip  could  not  be  obtained  upon  specimens  otherwise  than  by  threading  the  ends  and  reducing  the 
diameter  concentrically.  This  gave  two  specimens  of  almost  the  same  size  of  area  of  cross  section  as  one  would 
have  been.  Machine  operated  by  J.  E.  Howard,  M.  E. 

(Signed)  J.  G.  BUTLER,  Captain  of  Ord. 


Watertown,  mass.,  July  29,  1881. 


Analysis  of  the  iron  clamp  dog  from  obelisk  as  received  from  and  made  by  Captain  John  Pitman, 


Department,  U.  S.  A. : 


CAPT.  BUTLER. 


DR.  WENDEL. 


Ordnance 


Iron 

Slag,  etc. 
Silicon  . 
Arsenic 
Copper 
Phosphorus  . 
Manganese 
Cobalt  . 
Nickel  . 
Sulphur 

Comb’d  carbon 

Graphite 

Calcium 

Silica 

Aluminum 

Lead 

Magnesium  . 
Oxygen 


Slag  consists  of  ferric  oxide  1.870  and  silica  0.060. 


98.756 

I-9I7 


1.059 

0.102 

0.076 

0.005 

None 

0.039 

Trace 

0.033 

0.032 

0.036 

0.037 


0.138  - 


0.060 


0.013 


0.056 


100.235 


98.738 

0.150 

0.017 

0.102 

0.048 

O.116 

0.079 

0.009 


0.521 

0.218 

0.070 

0.028 

100.096 


(Signed)  J.  G  Butler, 

Captain  of  Ordnance. 


Density  of  ring  . 
“  “  cylinder 


7.8218  )  Taken  by  Capt.  Smith, 

7.7680  \  Ord.  Dept.,  U.  S.  A. 


Lead  is  another  of  the  metals  common  in  modern  commerce  and  of  which  the  production  by  the 
Egyptians  was  more  likely  on  general  grounds  from  the  greater  simplicity  of  the  process  ;  and  better 
attested  by  the  remains  of  their  old  explorations,  the  occurrence  of  galena  in  various  igneous  rocks. 
Specimen  No.  6  ol  Lieutenant-Commander  Gorringe’s  list  is  “part  of  the  lead  around  the  iron  clamps 
just  considered.” 

The  date  at  which  this  work  was  accomplished  (22  B.  C),  as  in  the  case  of  the  mortars,  leaves 
it  to  conjecture  as  to  whether  the  same  or  a  similar  material  was  employed  in  the  original  erection 
of  the  obelisk.  The  following  results  were  obtained  by  Prof.  R.  H.  Richards  to  whom  a  specimen 
was  given. 

The  piece  received  weighed  i5  grams.  This  lead  proved  to  be  very  soft  and  pure.  It  could 
be  flattened  to  an  exceedingly  thin  edge  without  cracking.  Its  specific  gravity  is  11.35  and  it  yielded 
to  analysis  : — 

p.  c. 

Lead . 98.90 

Copper  ............  0.06 

Iron  ............  0.01 

Silver  ............  0.052 


99.022 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 


i73 


No  gold,  antimony,  or  arsenic  was  detected.  The  sample  was  too  small  for  a  more  complete 
analysis.  This  lead  appears  to  have  been  quite  well  refined,  and  must  have  come  from  an  ore  in 
which  the  silver  contents  were  very  low,  unless,  as  may  possibly  be  the  case,  the  silver  was  separated 
by  the  capellation  process.  Comparing  this  with  other  leads  it  is  found  that  the  specific  gravity  of 
the  best  Patinson  lead  is  11.395,  Streng ;  11.38,  Kaisten.  A  sample  of  soft  lead  obtained  by  refining 
blast  furnace  lead  in  a  reverberatory  furnace  was  reported  as  of  specific  gravity  11.34.1 

It  yielded  to  analysis  :  , 


p.  c. 

Lead  .............  98.68 

Copper . .54 

Iron  .............  .03 

Nickel  ............  .04 

Antimony . 06 

Arsenic  ............  .05 


99.40 


This  seems  to  resemble  the  lead  from  the  obelisk  in  some  respects.  It  should,  however,  be  borne 
in  mind,  when  making  the  comparison,  that  the  quantity  of  the  latter  was  too  small  to  obtain  the  low 
percentages  of  metallic  impurities  which  were  probably  present. 

Bronze. — Of  all  the  objects  submitted  to  examination  none  is  more  interesting  than  the  bronze 
of  which  the  crabs  supporting  the  four  angles  of  the  shaft  were  made.  Their  date  is  placed  by 
Lieut.-Com.  Gorringe  as  B.  C.  22,  and  the  number  in  his  list  is  seven.  Small  square  prisms  of  about 
one  cm.  on  the  side  were  cut  from  the  dowels  holding  in  place  these  crabs,  and  one  of  these  was 
submitted  to  Prof.  F.  A.  Genth  whose  results  here  follow.  “  A  fresh  fracture  shows  a  crystalline 
structure;  it  is  somewhat  brittle  and  not  very  dense,  the  specific  gravity  being  8.415  ;  its  color  is 
reddish  bronze-yellow ;  its  composition  was  found  to  be  : — 


“  Copper 

Lead 

Tin  . 

Iron 

Nickel 

Cobalt 

Sulphur 


P.  C. 
90.700 
0.312 
8.127 
0.201 
Trace 
0.108 
0.070 


99.518” 


Dr.  Genth  adds  :  “I  do  not  know  of  any  other  Egyptian  bronzes  which  have  ever  been  analyzed 
(though  there  may  be  many)  except  that  of  an  arrow-head  from  an  Egyptian  grave,  in  which  was 
found  (by  Goebel- Scheigger  60.207) : — 


p.  c. 

“  Copper  ............  77.62 

Tin  .............  22.02 


99.64  ” 

The  methods  of  separating  copper  formation  at  that  time  were  very  imperfect,  and  it  is  very 
probable  therefore  that  the  tin  determination  is  altogether  too  high. 

Examination  of  paints  on  images  about  4,000  years  old. — Along  with  the  objects  immediately 
connected  with  the  obelisk,  Lieut.-Commander  Gorringe  handed  to  me  some  scales  of  pigment  which 
had  fallen  from  the  surfaces  of  certain  images  which  he  had  collected  whilst  in  Egypt,  and  to  which 
he  assigns  the  above  age.  These  were  also  submitted  to  Dr.  Genth,  whose  description  and  analysis 
here  follow.  He  says  : 


1  Reich  in  Berg  und  Hiitten  Zeilung ,  1 860. 


i74 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals. 


“There  were  three  samples,  one  representing  the  gold  and  yellow,  the  others  the  black  and  red  colors.  They 
consisted  of  scaly  materials,  of  about  0.5  mm.  in  thickness.  Many  were  composed  of  a  very  thin  yellowish-white 
bottom  layer  of  a  dull  earthy  appearance,  and  upon  this  a  white  layer  of  about  equal  thickness;  finally,  the  paint. 
In  many  of  the  scales  the  bottom  layer  was  wanting.  When  treated  with  dilute  hydrochloric  acid,  most  of  the 
scales  dissolved  rapidly  with  effervescence,  some  more  slowly,  leaving  the  paint  upon  a  thin  film  of  a  resinous 
substance.  The  yellow  and  gilt  contain  the  largest  quantity  of  this  resinous  film,  which,  on  heating,  gives  off  a 
pleasant  odor,  resembling  that  of  the  resin  of  balsam  fir.  It  seems  that  the  portions  which  were  to  be  gilded 
were  first  coated  with  a  varnish  prepared  from  this  resin,  and  that  the  gold,  thinner  than  the  thinnest  gold-leaf, 
was  laid  upon  it. 

The  yellow  paint,  of  a  brownish-yellow  color,  turning  reddish  on  ignition,  appears  to  have  been  a  variety  of 
ferric  hydrate,  the  ordinary  “yellow  ochre”;  the  red  paint,  ferric  oxide,  or  “red  ochre”;  and  the  black,  “lamp¬ 
black.” 

The  latter  colors  contain  only  a  very  small  quantity  of  resinous  admixture,  the  red  the  least,  the  black  a  larger 
portion. 

I  first  thought  when  I  observed  the  black  particles  swimming  in  the  liquid,  after  dissolving  the  colored 
scales  in  hydrochloric  acid,  that  the  black  was  produced  by  a  varnish  prepared  from  asphaltum,  but  on  dissolving 
the  resinous  matter  by  alcohol,  the  black  was  left  as  a  fine  powder,  which  on  ignition  burnt  off  like  lamp-black. 

The  mineral  constituents  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  paints  were  principally  variable  mixtures  of  calcium 
carbonate  and  hydrous  calcium  sulphate,  or  gypsum. 

The  following  results  were  obtained  by  the  analyses  of  the  three  different  specimens  of  paint. 


GILT  AND  YELLOW  PAINT. 

The  whole  quantity  for  analysis  was  only  0.1902  grams,  which  gave: — 

Silicic  acid  ......... 

Sulphuric  acid  ......... 

Carbonic  acid  ......... 

Ferric  oxide  ......... 

Alumina  .......... 

Magnesia  ........... 

Lime  .......... 

Soda  .......... 

Potash  .......... 

Gold  .......... 

Resin,  water,  etc.  ........ 


P.  C. 

379 

2.07 

31-44 

0-53 

2.05 

o-57 

48.24 

0.57 

0.22 

0.31 

10.21 


The  principal  constituents  of  this  paint  are,  therefore, 


100.00 


P.  C. 

Calcium  carbonate  ...........  71.45 

Hydrous  calcium  sulphate  .........  4.45 

Resin,  water,  etc . 9.28,  etc. 


BLACK  PAINT. 

The  quantity  for  analysis  was  0.4244  grams.  The  carbonic  acid  determination  was  unfortunately  lost,  by 
upsetting  the  apparatus.  The  following  substances  were  found. 


Silicic  acid . .  .  .  .  .  2.76 

Sulphuric  acid . 24.28 

Ferric  oxide . 0.33 

Alumina  ............  0.75 

Magnesia . 0.23 

Lime . 38.87 

Soda  ............  0.31 

Potash  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .0.13 

Carbon  and  resin  ..........  4.50 

Gold  .............  trace 

Carbonic  acid,  water,  etc . 27.84 


100.00 


CCS 


s 


» 


THE  KHEDIVES 


Analysis  of  Materials  and  Metals.  175 

The  principal  constituents  of  this  paint  are,  therefore,  present  in  the  following  proportions : — 

Calcium  carbonate  (about)  .  33-40 

Hydrous  calcium  sulphate  ........  52.21 

Carbon  and  resin  ..........  4.50 

Water,  etc . 2.21,  etc. 


RED  PAINT. 

Only  0.1074  grams  could  be  obtained  for  analysis,  and  the  scales  had  only  a  very  thin  coat  of 
paint  (ferric  oxide).  I  found: — 


Silicic  acid  ....  - . 1.96 

Sulphuric  acid . 39-05 

Carbonic  acid  ...........  1.02 

Ferric  oxide  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .2.80 

Alumina . 1.13 

Magnesia  ...........  0.27 

Lime . 35.53 

Soda  ............  0.30 

Potash  ............  0.06 

Water  and  resin  ..........  17.88 


100.00 


This  paint  contains,  therefore,  as  follows  : — 


Calcium  carbonate  ..........  2.32 

Hydrous  calcium  sulphate  ........  83.96 

Resin,  water,  etc.  ..........  0.31,  etc. 


The  quantities  of  material  furnished  for  examination  were  unfortunately  too  small  for  a  fuller 
investigation,  but  it  is  hoped  that  even  these  imperfect  analyses  may  be  of  some  value.” 

F.  A.  GENTH, 
University  of  Pennsylvania. 


■ 


‘ 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Abandonment  of  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  ...  104-105 

Abd-el-Lateef,  cited,  108  ;  quoted  .  70,  72,  74,  123 

Abercromby,  Sir  R.  .......  97 

Absorbent  power  of  syenite . 16 1 

Address  at  laying  corner-stone  N.  Y.  obelisk,  34-35  ;  at 

presentation  ceremonies  ....  50-54 

Adelphi  steps,  site  for  London  obelisk  .  .  .  105 


Age  of  obelisks  :  Albani,  137  ;  Alnwick,  137  ;  Amyrtaeus, 
138  ;  Assyrian,  158  ;  Begig,  142  ;  Boboli,  137  ;  Bor- 
gian,  137  ;  Corfe  Castle,  139  ;  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah, 
144;  Flaminian,  130  ;  Heliopolis,  122  ;  Lateran,  127  ; 
Lepsius’,  141  ;  London,  68,  96  ;  Luxor,  119  ;  Monte 
Cavallo,  126  ;  Monte  Citorio,  133  ;  Monte  Pincio, 
135  ;  New  York,  4,  68  ;  Pantheon,  134  ;  Paris,  119  ; 
Piazza  della  Minerva,  133 ;  Piazza  Navona,  135  ; 
Prioli,  126  ;  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  126  ;  Vatican, 
1 18;  Villa  Mattei,  134;  Wadi  Nasb,  144.  See  also 
Oldest. 

Agreement  for  removing  London  obelisk,  100  ;  New  York 


obelisk  .........  5 

Albani  obelisk . ■  1 37 

Alexander  VII  re-erects  Piazza  della  Minerva  obelisk  .  134 

Alexander,  Sir  J.  E.,  removal  of  London  obelisk,  98  ; 

plan  for  its  removal  .....  98-99 


Alexandria,  surroundings  of  obelisk  in,  1  ;  relics  of  inter¬ 
est  in,  3  ;  removing  N.  Y.  obelisk  to,  4,  36,  52,  72  ; 
plans  for  moving  N.  Y.  obelisk  through,  15,  16  ;  dock 
at,  24,  104  ;  obelisks  removed  to,  108,  154,  155  ;  re¬ 
moving  Constantinople  obelisk  to  .  .  .124 

Alexandria,  Gov.  of,  directed  to  transfer  obelisk  to  Lieut.- 
Comdr.  Gorringe,  10  ;  letter  from  Lieut. -Comdr. 
Gorringe  to,  10  ;  application  to,  for  permission  to 


move  obelisk  through  the  city  ....  15 

All  the  Year  Round,  extract  from  ....  102 

Alnwick  obelisk  .......  137-138 

Alumina  in  syenite,  161-162  ;  in  cements  .  .  .  169 

Aluminium  oxide  in  felspar  of  the  syenite  .  .  .162 

Amenemha  II,  copper  mining  in  reign  of  143 

Amenhat  I.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .122 

Amenhotep  II  erected  Alnwick  obelisk  .  .  .  137 

Amenhotep  III  founds  temple  at  Luxor,  119  ;  erects 

propylon  at  Karnak  .  .  .  .  .  .120 

America,  obelisks  found  in,  60  ;  amphibole-granite  found 

in  .  167 

American  Bible  Society  declines  to  contribute  New  Tes¬ 
tament  to  deposit  in  the  foundation,  33  ;  names  of 
officers  not  deposited . 33 


PAGE 


American  Numismatic  and  Archaeological  Society  pre¬ 
sents  medals  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  ....  53-56 

Amphibole  in  syenite  .  .  .  .  .  .  .166 

Amphibole-gneiss  . . 167 

Amphibole-granite . 163,  164,  167 

Amyrtaeus,  obelisks  of  ......  138-139 

Analysis  of  materials  and  metals  found  with  N.  Y.  obelisk 

at  Alexandria  .......  161-175 

“  Anglia”  (The)  tows  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  .  .  .  105 

Anglo-Saxon  Lodge,  No.  137,  contributes  Masonic  em¬ 
blems  for  deposit  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  33 

Animals,  Egyptian  veneration  of,  69  ;  use  of,  .  .  153 

Antef,  name  on  obelisk  at  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah  .  .  144 

Anthony,  J.  B.,  lays  corner-stone  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  34-38 

Antinori  re-erects  La  Trinita  obelisk  .  .  .  .  135 

Antinoiis,  Monte  Pincio  obelisk  erected  in  honor  of,  135  ; 

name  on,  ........  136 

Antiquity.  See  Age  ;  Archaeology. 

Apartment-house  near  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria  .  1,  2 

Apatite  in  the  syenite . 166,  167 

Apollo-Phoebus  identified  with  the  sun  ....  75 

Apparatus.  See  Machinery  ;  Tools. 

Ara  Coeli,  Convent  of,  former  site  of  Villa  Mattei  obelisk  134 
Arabs  employed  in  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  .12 

Archaeological  treasures  on  site  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12,  14  ; 

London  obelisk . 102 

Archaeology  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  ....  59-76 

Architecture,  Egyptian,  35,  60  ;  and  Freemasonry  .  37 

Arles  obelisk  141 

Arnold,  A.,  plan  for  removal  of  London  obelisk  .  .  100 

Arsenic  used  by  Egyptians  in  forging  iron  .  .  .170 

Ashley,  J.  L.,  offers  the  “  Eothen  ”  for  towing  the  “  Cleo¬ 
patra”  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .105 

Aslambekoff,  Rear-Adm., . 15 

Assouan  obelisk,  143,  146  ;  quarries,  119,  122,  135,  146- 
147,  163.  See  also  Syenite. 

Assurbanipal,  obelisks  removed  by  .  .  .  154 

Assyrian  obelisks,  60,  158  ;  transportation,  .  .  .  154 

Augustus,  Emp.,  obelisks  removed  to  Rome  by,  130,  133,  134 

Babylon,  removal  of  obelisk  to, . 154 

Backsheesh . 1,  56 

Baedeker,  quoted,  71  ;  cited . 143 

Baker,  B.,  plan  of  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  .  .  .  .  101 

Bandini  cited  ........  133 

Bankes,  W.  J.,  Corfe  Castle  obelisk  .  .  .  .139 

Barbarus,  Prefect  of  Egypt . 72,  76 


177 


I  78 


Index . 


Barberini  obelisk . 

PAGE 

^s-^6 

Basalt,  obelisks  of  . 

138,  146 

Base  of  obelisk.  See  Foundation. 

Bass-reliefs.  See  Inscriptions. 

Baur,  T., . 

46 

Bayard,  T.  F., 

57 

Begig  obelisk  ...... 

142 

Bellonius,  P.,  cited . 

00 

0 

M 

Bellori,  discovery  of  fragment  of  obelisk 

136 

Belzoni,  97  ;  cited,  139  ;  quoted  . 

147 

Benevento  obelisk . 

136-137 

Bergh,  H.,  contributes  documents  for  deposit 

in  founda- 

tion  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .... 

33 

Berlin,  obelisk  in,  . 

141-142 

Bernini,  re-erects  Piazza  della  Minerva  obelisk,  134  ;  re¬ 
erects  Piazza  Navona  obelisk . 135 

Besson,  plan  for  removing  Paris  obelisk  .  .  .  .77 

Bible  deposited  in  pedestal  of  London  obelisk,  106.  See 


also  American  Bible  Society. 

Bierstadt,  E.,  photographs  N.  Y.  obelisk  ...  47 

Biotite-granite  ......  163,  164,  166 

Birch,  S.,  quoted,  62,  68,  122  ;  cited,  108,  121,  124,  127, 

134,  135.  136,  137,  138,  139,  i52,  155 
Bishop,  Capt.,  in  charge  of  guard  of  honor  at  re-erection 

of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .......  47 

Bloomfield,  Sir  B.,  letter  from  Mr.  Briggs  to,  .  97-98 

Boats  of  ancient  Egypt,  151-152  ;  use  in  moving  obelisks, 

154  ;  Roman  use,  155,  156.  See  also  Rafts;  Vessels. 
Boboli  Gardens,  obelisk  in,  .....  137 

Bombay  Courier ,  extract  from,  .  .  .  .  -97 

Bone  ash  in  cements . .170 

Bonomi,  J.,  cited  112,  127,  130,  132,  133,  134,  137,  138 

Bonwick,  J.,  cited,  59  ;  quoted . 62 

Booth,  Capt.,  .......  104,  105 

Borgian  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .137 

Boswell,  Capt.,  plan  for  removing  London  obelisk  .  .  98 

Boys,  presentation  to,  of  medals  commemorative  of  N.  Y. 

obelisk  ........  54-56 


Breakage:  danger  of,  in  moving  N.  Y.  obelisk,  15,  21  ;  of 
strands  in  embarking  pedestal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  25  ; 
how  prevented  in  voyage  of  “  Dessoug,”  27  ;  of  bot¬ 
tom  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  75  ;  of  tackles  in  lowering 
Luxor  obelisk,  86,  87  ;  of  heel  of  London  obelisk, 
102  ;  in  “  Cleopatra,”  103  ;  how  prevented  in  raising 
London  obelisk,  106  ;  of  pyramidion  of  Vatican 
obelisk,  112.  See  also  Crack;  Defacement;  De¬ 


fects  ;  Fall  ;  Fragments  ;  Shaft 

Bresca . 116 

Briet . 78 

Briggs,  S.,  letter  to  Sir  B.  Bloomfield  .  .  .  97-98 

Bristow,  G.  F.,  ........  49 

British  Museum,  obelisks  in . 138-139 


Bronze  tools  used  by  Egyptians,  150  ;  analysis  of  that  in 

crabs  of  N.  Y.  obelisk . 173 

Browning,  H.,  solution  for  preservation  of  London  obe¬ 
lisk  ..........  107 

Brugsch  Bey,  translation  of  inscriptions  on  N.  Y.  obelisk, 

65-68  ;  cited,  62,  69,  70,  71,  72,  124,  127,  142,  150, 

152,  153 

Bryce,  Sir  A., .  .  .  96 

Buchoz,  cited . 

Butler,  Capt.  J.  G.,  analysis  of  iron  clamp  found  under  N. 

Y.  obelisk . 170-17  2 

Byzantine  emperors,  removal  of  obelisks  to  Constantinople  5 1 


PAGE 

Csesareum  in  Alexandria  .  .  .  .  1,  72-73 

Caillard,  Director-Gen.  of  Posts,  .....  24 

Cairo  obelisks  .......  139,  142 

Caissons,  for  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12,  15,  16,  20,  41  ;  for  Lon¬ 
don  obelisk,  51.  See  also  Launching. 

Calcium  carbonate,  in  the  limestone  found  near  the  Nile, 


168  ;  in  the  mortar  and  cement  .  .  .  168,  169 

Calcium  oxide  in  felspar  of  the  syenite  .  .  .  .162 

Calcium  sulphate  in  the  mortar  and  cement  .  168,  169 

Caligula,  Emp.,  removes  Vatican  obelisk  from  Heliopo¬ 
lis  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  no,  1 18 

Cambyses,  injuries  to  temples  .  .  .  72 

Camels,  to  lighten  draught  of  the  “  Luxor  ”  .  .  .88 

Camels,  ancient  use  of, . .  153 

Canal  for  moving  obelisks  from  quarries  to  the  Nile,  152,  154 
Cangiahs  .........  80 

Cannon-balls,  substitution  of,  for  wheels  .  9,  15,  26, 


27,  42,  44 


92 

169 

8,  9 
57 

104 


.  141 

.  96 

168-170 
•  3i 
101,  106 

77.  78 


Caoutchouc  on  Paris  obelisk  to  protect  it  from  climate, 
Carbonic  acid  in  cements  ...... 

Carburi,  Count,  method  of  moving  pedestal  of  statue  of 
Peter  the  Great  ....... 

Carlisle,  J.  G.,  ........ 

Carter,  Capt.  H.,  given  command  of  the  “  Cleopatra,” 

10 1  ;  compelled  to  abandon  her  .... 

Cartouch.  See  Inscriptions. 

Carvings.  See  Inscriptions. 

Catania  obelisk  ........ 

Cavan,  Lord,  ......... 

Cements,  analysis  ...... 

Central  Park  selected  as  the  site 
Centre  of  gravity  of  London  obelisk  in  its  cylinder, 

Ceremonies.  See  Corner-stone  ;  Presentation. 

Cerisi,  de,  . . 

Chabas,  cited,  62  ;  translation  of  inscriptions  on  N.  Y. 
obelisk,  63-64  ;  on  Paris  obelisk,  94-95  ;  on  Constan¬ 
tinople  obelisk,  125-126  ;  on  Alnwick  obelisk  .  138 

Champollion,  J.  J.,  cited,  77,  80,  119,  137  ;  how  enabled 

to  translate  inscriptions  ......  140 

Chamulcus  for  moving  obelisks  .  .  .  .152,  156 

Channel  iron  tracks  .  .  .  .  9,  26,  40,  42,  44 

Charles  X  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  52,  78 

Cherif  Pacha,  letter  to,  from  Mr.  Farman,  3  ;  letter  from, 

to  Mr.  Farman  .......  3 

Chisels  used  by  Egyptians  in  quarrying  obelisks,  147,  148, 

149,  150  ;  by  Hindoos  . . 15 1 

Cholera,  attack  of,  at  Luxor . 85 

Christians,  method  of  spending  Sunday  in  Alexandria  .  14 

Church,  F.  E.,  .......  30,  170 

Church  steeples  represent  same  idea  as  obelisks  .  .  60 

Civilization.  See  Egyptian. 

Clamp  dog  found  under  N.  Y.  obelisk,  analysis,  .  170-17 2 

Clamps  for  attaching  N.  Y.  obelisk  to  pedestal,  46  ; 

weight  of  ........  46 

Claudius,  Emp.,  erects  Vatican  obelisk  in  Rome,  118  ; 

Boboli  obelisk . 137 

Cleavage  of  obelisks  from  their  quarries  .  .  147,  148 

Cleaver,  Rev.  J.  B.,  benediction  at  laying  of  corner-stone 

of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .......  38 

Clement  VI  re-erects  Pantheon  obelisk  .  .  .134 

“Cleopatra”  (The),  6  ;  plan  of,  101  ;  enclosing  obelisk 
in,  102  ;  fitting  for  the  voyage,  104  ;  abandoned, 
104-105  ;  picked  up,  105  ;  insurance  on,  .  .  107 

Cleopatra,  Queeti,  her  connection  with  the  obelisks  .  73 


Index 


179 


PAGE 

Cleopatra’s  Needle,  N.  Y.  obelisk  properly  known  by  that 
name,  3  ;  why  so  called  unknown,  4 ;  when  the 
name  was  given,  36  ;  its  propriety  ....  73 

Climate,  protection  of  Paris  obelisk  from,  92  ;  of  London 

obelisk  .........  107 

Coins,  found  in  excavating,  12,  73;  deposited  in  foundation 
of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  33  ;  of  Paris  obelisk,  91  ;  of  London 
obelisk,  106;  of  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  113,116 

Comanos,  N.  D.,  letters  from  Mr.  Evarts  to,  .  .  .  6 

Comparative  dimensions  and  weight  of  obelisks,  table,  .  145 

Congress.  See  United  States. 

Conly,  Maj.  C.,  .....  170 

Constantine,  Etnp.,  Constantinople  obelisk  removed  to 

Alexandria  in  reign  of,  .  .  .  .  .124 

Constantinople  obelisks,  51,  68,  70,  124-126  ;  inscriptions 

on  ......  .  159,  160 

Constantius,  Emp .,  removes  Lateran  obelisk  to  Rome  .  127 

Conte  excavated  obelisk  .......  74 

Contract.  See  Agreement. 

Cook,  F.  C.,  quoted  .  .  .  .  .  .  70,  71 

Cooper,  cited,  68,  69,  108,  121,  124,  126,  127,  133,  134, 

136,  i37,  138,  i39>  i43,  i44,  148,  iS7 
Cooper,  Com.  G.  H.,  .  .  .  .  .  .  46, 56 

Cooper,  M.  W., . .  .  -57 

Copper,  Egyptian  mines  of,  143  ;  no  trace  found  on  N.  Y. 

obelisk  ........  169,  170 

Corfe  Castle  obelisk  ......  139-141 

Corner-stone,  ceremonies  in  laying  it  in  N.  Y.  .  34-38 

Correspondence  relating,  to  N.  Y.  obelisk,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6, 
xo,  50  ;  to  registry  of  “  Dessoug,”  57  ;  to  Paris  obe¬ 
lisk,  79  ;  to  London  obelisk  ....  97-98 

Cost.  See  Expense. 

Crabs  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12  ;  difficulty  in  removing  them, 

14  ;  their  weight,  46  ;  securing  them  in  position,  48  ; 
inscriptions  on,  55  ;  translation,  76  ;  why  that  form 

of  support  was  adopted . 75-76 

Crabs,  of  London  obelisk,  102,  108  ;  of  Vatican  obelisk, 

114,  116 

Crack,  in  base  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12  ;  in  Paris  obelisk,  80, 

86  ;  in  Assouan  obelisk  ......  143 

Cradle,  for  moving  N.  Y.  obelisk,  9,  15,  16,  44-45  ;  for 
moving  Paris  obelisk,  89  ;  for  landing  London  obe¬ 
lisk,  105;  for  moving  Vatican  obelisk,  114;  for 
moving  Constantinople  obelisk,  160  ;  ancient  use  of, 


152.  See  also  Chamulcus. 

Crane,  use  of,  by  ancient  Egyptians  .  .  .  .  154 

Criminals  anciently  used  in  moving  large  stones  .  .  153 

Crocodilopolis  obelisk  .  142 

Crosby,  Dr.  H.,  prayer  at  presentation  ceremonies,  N.  Y. 

obelisk  . . 49 

Cross  placed  on  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  117 

Cupric  oxide  in  cements  ......  169 

Curvature  of  obelisks  .  .  .  .  .  .  83,119 

Daily  Graphic . 40 

Dates.  See  Age  ;  Time. 

Death  symbolized  by  pyramids  ....  59-60 

Decorations.  See  Embellishments. 

Defacement  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria  1 


Defect,  in  Paris  obelisk,  80,  86  ;  in  London  obelisk,  102. 

See  also  Breakage  ;  Crack. 

Delays  in  removing,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  16,  17,  24,  29  ;  Paris 
obelisk,  79,  80,  88,  89,  90,  93  ;  London  obelisk,  102, 

103,  104 


PAGE 

Delesse,  A.,  quoted . 164-165 

Denon,  cited  . . 75,  142 

Department  of  Parks,  N.  Y.,  approves  site,  31  ;  fails  to 

prepare  site  for  foundation . 32 

Depew,  C.  M., .  2 

Deposit  of  articles  in  foundation,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  32-34  ; 
of  Paris  obelisk,  91  ;  of  London  obelisk,  106  ;  of 

Vatican  obelisk . 113,116,117 

Derby,  Lord , . 98 

“Dessoug,”  purchase  of,  22-24,  56-57  ;  voyage,  29-30; 

granted  an  American  registry,  56-57  ;  sale  of,  -57 

Detaching  obelisks  from  their  quarries.  See  Cleavage. 

Dial  found  near  base  of  obelisk . 73 

Dietrich,  W.  G., . 49 

Digging.  See  Excavations. 

Dimensions  of  obelisks,  table,  145.  See  also  Size. 

Diodorus  Siculus  cited  .  .  .  .  .  15 1,  152,  154 

Diorite  found  with  syenite  .  .  .  .  .  .163 

Disembarking,  pedestal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  31-32  ;  N.  Y. 

obelisk,  39-42  ;  Paris  obelisk,  89  ;  London  obelisk  .  105 

Distance,  N.  Y.  obelisk  was  moved,  42,  44,  45,  47,  48  ; 
Vatican  obelisk  was  moved,  1 1 5  ;  Egyptians  moved 

blocks  •  •  . . i52,  153 

Diving  operations  in  removing,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  16,  21  ; 

London  obelisk  . . 102 

Dixon,  J.,  negotiations  relating  to  removing  N.  Y.  obelisk, 

2  ;  declines  at  proposed  cost,  4  ;  his  plan  of  moving 
London  obelisk  unsuited  to  N.  Y.  obelisk,  5  ;  his 
agreement  to  remove  London  obelisk,  100  ;  tribute 
to  him,  100,  108;  cause  of  first  failure  of  “Cleo¬ 
patra,”  104  ;  site  desired  by  him  for  London  obelisk, 

105  ;  expense  of  its  removal  .....  107 

Dixon,  W., . 101,  104 

Dock,  at  Alexandria,  24,  104;  charges  at  N.  Y.,  Phila., 
and  Baltimore,  39  for  disembarking  obelisk  at 

London . 99,  X05 

Dock  Department,  N.  Y.,  loans  derrick  .  .  .  -31 

Docking  the  caisson  and  “  Dessoug  ”  .  .  .  .24 

Domitian,  Emp.,  quarries  Piazza  Navona  obelisk,  135  ; 

erects  Benevento,  Borgian,  and  Albani  obelisks  .  137 


Donaldson  cited . 

“9.  *5°,  i53 

Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah,  obelisks  of,  . 

•  144 

Drovetti  ........ 

.  .  78 

Dudgeon,  R.,  makes  hydraulic  pumps  used  in  remov¬ 

ing  N.  Y.  obelisk,  8  ;  contributes  one  for  deposit  in 

foundation  .  .  ... 

•  34 

Durability  of  obelisks,  61  ;  how  Paris  obelisk 

was  pro- 

tected,  92  ;  London  obelisk 

107 

Dynamite  used  in  clearing  harbor  of  Alexandria 

.  .  102 

Earthquake,  probable  cause  of  fall  of  London 

obelisk, 

108  ;  overthrows  Constantinople  obelisk  . 

124 

East  River  landing,  N.  Y.,  why  undesirable 

•  3i 

Ebers,  quoted,  69,  149  ;  cited,  70,  72,  121,  122, 

123,  142, 

M3,  i53 

Ebn-Khordadbeh  quoted  .... 

•  123 

Edrisi,  quoted,  73-74  ;  cited  .... 

108 

Educational  influences  of  obelisks  . 

•  54,  61,  96 

Effendi,  K.,  ....... 

.  80 

Egmont,  van,  quoted . 

•  74 

Egypt,  postal  service,  22  ;  her  associations  with  Free- 

masonry,  35  ;  obelisks  still  in,  142-144 
Aexandria  ;  Khedive  ;  Pharaohs. 

See  also 

Egyptian  civilization  ..... 

35-36,  52.  62 

Index. 


1 80 


PAGE 

Egyptian  government,  claims  against,  n.  See  also 
Khedive. 

Egyptian  mythology,  59,  60,  69,  132,  143.  See  also  In¬ 
scriptions. 

Egyptologists,  imperfect  knowledge  of,  .  .  .  .62 

Ehlers,  E.  M.  L.,  Grand  Marshal  in  laying  the  corner¬ 
stone  of  New  York  obelisk . 34 

Embarking,  New  York  obelisk,  24-27  ;  Paris  obelisk,  87- 
88.  See  also  Disembarking. 

Embellishments,  on  London  obelisk,  107  ;  on  Vatican 


obelisk,  1 1 7  ;  on  Arles  obelisk  ....  141 

Emblems.  See  Inscriptions  ;  Symbolic. 

Emery  powder  used  in  cutting  stone  ....  150 

Encasing.  See  Sheathing. 

Engine.  See  Steam. 

Engineering  skill  of  Egyptians  .  .  .  .  .146 

England,  obelisks  in.  See  Alnwick  ;  British  Museum  ; 

Corfe  Castle  ;  London  ;  Sion  House  ;  Wansted. 

Entef  . . 144 

“  Eothen  ”  (The)  offers  to  tow  the  “  Cleopatra”  .  .  105 

Ephrem  Syrus,  St.,  quoted  .  .  .  .  .  .123 

Erection  of  obelisks,  ancient  methods,  45,  156-160.  See 
also  Re-erection. 

Esmeade  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  136 

Europe,  amphibole-granites  found  in,  ...  167 


Evarts,  W.  M.,  his  aid  in  securing  New  York  obelisk,  v, 

2  ;  letters  to  Mr.  Farman,  2,  4  ;  letter  from  Mr.  Far- 
man,  3-4  ;  letters  to  Mr.  Comanos,  6  ;  present  at  re¬ 
erection,  47  ;  address  at  presentation  ceremonies, 

50-53  ;  letters  relating  to  American  registry  of 
“Dessoug”  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -57 

Excavations  around,  New  York  obelisk,  12,  74;  Paris 
obelisk,  81,  84 ;  London  obelisk,  102  ;  Vatican 
obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1 13,  115 

Expense,  in  removing  New  York  obelisk,  4,  5,  16,  17,  21, 

23,  56  >'  Paris  obelisk,  52,  78,  79,  93  ;  London  obe¬ 
lisk,  100,  105,  107  ;  in  re-erecting  Vatican  obelisk  .  117 

Fall  of  obelisks  :  Begig,  142  ;  Benevento,  136  ;  Constan¬ 
tinople,  124  ;  Drah  Abou’l  Neggah,  144  ;  Flaminian, 

130  ;  Heliopolis,  123  ;  Karnak,  121  ;  Lateran,  127  ; 
London,  73,  108  ;  Monte  Cavallo,  126  ;  Monte 
Citorio,  133  ;  Monte  Pincio,  136  ;  Pantheon,  134  ; 
Piazza  della  Minerva,  134  ;  Piazza  Navona,  135  ; 

San,  142;  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  126  ;  Wadi  Nasb  143 
Farman,  E.  E.,  his  efforts  in  obtaining  N.  Y.  obelisk,  2  ; 
letters  to  M.  Evarts,  2,  3-4  ;  letter  to  Cherif  Pacha, 

3  ;  from  Cherif  Pacha,  3  ;  from  Evarts,  4  ;  his  tact 


in  negotiations  .......  50 

Feddam . .82 


Felspar,  in  syenite,  161,  162,  163,  164,  166  ;  in  cements,  169 

Fergusson,  J.,  quoted,  120  ;  cited . 142 

Ferric  oxide,  in  the  limestone,  168  ;  in  the  mortars  and 


cements . 168,  169 

Feuardent,  G.  L.,  meaning  of  Masonic  emblems  on  foun¬ 
dation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  19-20  ;  why  crabs  were 


adopted  for  supports  .... 

Figures  on  obelisks.  See  Inscriptions. 

75-76 

Fire  used  in  cleavage  of  obelisks 

Fissure.  See  Crack. 

•  147 

“ Fitzmaurice  ”  (The)  picks  up  the  “Cleopatra” 
Flaminian  obelisk.  See  Piazza  del  Popolo. 

•  105 

Florence,  obelisks  in, . 

•  7°,  137 

Fontana,  D.,  re-erects  Vatican  obelisk,  111-117  ; 

rewards 

PAGE 

and  honors  received  by  him,  1 1 7  ;  other  architectu¬ 
ral  work,  1 1 8  ;  re-erects,  Santa  Maria  Maggiore  obe¬ 
lisk,  127  ;  Lateran  obelisk,  127  ;  Flaminian  obelisk  .  130 

Fontana’s  castle  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .112 

Forbes,  D.,  cited  ........  164 

Force  exerted,  in  turning  N.  Y.  obelisk,  14  ;  in  lowering 
it,  17  ;  in  moving  caisson,  22  ;  in  raising  its  pedestal, 

25  ;  in  embarking  the  obelisk,  26  ;  in  turning  it  in 
“  Dessoug,”  27  ;  in  transport  through  N.  Y.,  43  ;  in 
raising  it  at  Central  Park,  45  ;  in  lowering  Paris  obe¬ 
lisk,  82,  83,  84  ;  in  disembarking  it,  89  ;  in  moving 
it  through  Paris,  89,  90  ;  in  raising  it,  91  ;  in  launch¬ 
ing  London  obelisk,  103  ;  in  re-erecting  Vatican 
obelisk,  112,  116  ;  that  used  by  ancients  in  moving 
heavy  blocks  .......  153,  154 

Form  of  obelisks  .  .  .  .  .60,  61,  83,  112,  119 

Foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  affected  by  surf  at  Alexan¬ 
dria,  1,  12  ;  its  removal,  17  ;  embarking  it,  27  ;  its 
weight,  27;  its  discharge  from  the  “Dessoug,”  31  ; 
preparation  of  site  for,  32  ;  replacing  it,  32  ;  date  of, 

34  ;  objects  deposited  in,  32-34.  See  also  Pedestal. 
Foundation  of  Vatican  obelisk,  115  ;  objects  deposited 

in,  1 13,  1 16  ;  size  and  arrangement  .  .  .  115-116 

Foundation-stone.  See  Corner-stone. 

Fracture.  See  Crack. 

Fragments  of  obelisks,  in  Rome,  136  ;  in  British  Museum, 


138  ;  at  Wansted  .......  139 

France,  obelisks  in.  See  Arles  ;  Paris. 

Fraser,  Prof.  P.,  analysis  of  materials  and  metals  found 

with  the  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria  .  .  161-175 

Frass  cited  .........  168 

Freemasonry.  See  Masonic. 

Friction,  reduction  of,  in  moving  obelisk  .  .  42,  43 

Garnet  found  in  amphibole-granite  .  .  .  .165 

Gasparin,  letter  to  M.  Le  Bas  .....  93 

Gau,  ancient  method  of  quarrying  ....  147,  149 

Geinitz,  Dr .,  cited  .  .  .  .  .  .  .168 

Generation,  obelisks  symbolic  of,  .  .  .  .  .  1,  59 

Genth,  Dr.  F.  A.,  analysis,  of  felspar  in  syenite,  162  ;  of 
cement,  169  ;  of  bronze  of  crabs,  173  ;  of  paints 
from  images  ......  .  i73_I75 

Germantown  amphibole-granite,  analysis,  .  .  .167 

Germany,  obelisks  in.  See  Berlin. 

Gibbon,  E.,  quoted  .  .  .  .  .  .  .110 

Gilder,  R.  W.,  hymn  at  presentation  ceremonies,  N.  Y. 

obelisk  .........  49 

Gizeh,  Lepsius’  obelisk  found  near,  141  ;  where  its  pyra¬ 
mids  were  quarried  .  .  .  .  .  153 

Goff,  N.,  present  at  re-erection  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  47 

Goguet  cited  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -152 

Gold  not  attached  to  pyramidion  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  169,  170 


Gorringe,  Lt.-Com.  H.  H.,  tribute  from  Mr.  Hurlbert, 
v  ;  letter  from  Mr.  Vanderbilt  and  reply,  5  ;  un¬ 
dertakes  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  5  ;  letters  accred¬ 
iting  him  to  Egyptian  government,  6  ;  arrival  at 
Alexandria,  9  ;  interview  with  the  Khedive,  10  ; 
letter  to  governor  of  Alexandria,  10  ;  purchase  of 
“Dessoug,”  22-24;  takes  leave  of  Khedive,  28; 
selecting  site  for  obelisk  in  N.  Y.,  31  ;  tribute  from 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  50;  from  Mr.  Evarts,  51; 
from  Mr.  Sullivan,  54  ;  commemorative  medal,  54  ; 
expense  of  removing  obelisk,  56  ;  foot-notes,  105, 

107,  169  ;  record  of  London  obelisk  .  .  108-109 


Index. 


1 8 1 


PAGE 

Governor  of  Alexandria.  See  Alexandria. 

Grace,  W.  R.,  present  at  re-erection  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  47  ; 

receives  the  obelisk  in  behalf  of  N.  Y.  .  .  .  53 

Grade  of  route  of  obelisk,  in  N.  Y.,  42,  44  ;  in  Paris  .  89 
Grading  land,  in  Alexandria  for  moving  obelisk,  15,  102  ; 

in  N.  Y.,  43  ;  in  Rome  . . 113 

Grand  Lodge  of  Freemasons,  Egypt,  emblems  on  founda¬ 
tion  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .19 

Granite,  obelisks  made  of,  141,  146.  See  also  Amphi- 
bole  ;  Syenite 

Graphic  .........  40 

Graywacke  Knoll  selected  as  the  site,  31  ;  preparing  it 

for  the  foundation  .......  32 

Greek  inscriptions,  on  ruins  at  Alexandria,  1  ;  on  Corfe 

Castle  obelisk,  140  ;  on  Constantinople  obelisk  .  160 

Greek  mythology  .......  75 

Green,  Judge  A.,  ........  2 

Greenstone  .........  163 

Guiscard,  R.,  said  to  have  overthrown,  Santa  Maria  Mag- 
giore  and  Monte  Cavallo  obelisks,  126  ;  Monte 
Citorio  obelisk  .......  133 

Gyllius,  P.,  quoted  .  124-125,  126,  158-159,  160 

Gypsum  in  the  mortar  ......  168 

Haddan,  J.  L.,  plan  for  removal  of  London  obelisk  .  99 

Hadrian,  Emp .,  quarried  Monte  Pincio  obelisk  .  135 

Hagar  Silsileh,  quarries  of,  .....  149 

Hall,  Rev.  C.  H.,  prayer  at  laying  of  corner-stone  of  N.  Y. 

obelisk  .........  35 

Hammamat,  quarries  of  .....  152,  153 

Hatasou,  Queen ,  obelisks  of,  at  Karnak,  1 21-12 2  ;  not 
erected  by  use  of  inclined  plane,  157  ;  mining  in 

reign  of, . 143 

Haussez,  Baron  d’,  ......  77,  78 

Height  of  obelisks.  See  Size. 


Heliogabalus,  Emp.,  re-erects  Monte  Pincio  obelisk  .  136 

Heliopolis,  its  ancient  importance,  4  ;  sketch  of,  68-72  ; 


obelisks,  removed  from,  1,  4,  70,  no,  126, 

127,  130,  133, 

r34 

Heliopolis  obelisk  ..... 

.  .  122- 

-124 

Hematite  in  the  quartz  of  the  syenite 

. 

166 

Herald  ...... 

•  •  • 

65 

Hericourt,  d’,  cited . 

... 

168 

Hermapion,  translation  of  inscriptions  on 

Flaminian 

obelisk  ...... 

,  . 

140 

Herodotus,  cited,  150  ;  quoted 

•  I52, 

!53 

Herschell,  Sir  J.  F.,  quoted 

. 

i47 

Hewitt,  A.  S.,  . 

.  .  . 

57 

Hewitt,  R.,  Jr.  ..... 

. 

48 

Heyman  quoted  ..... 

. 

74 

Hieroglyphs.  See  Inscriptions. 

Hindoo.  See  India. 

Historical  sketch,  of  New  York  obelisk,  52,  68-76  ;  of 

London  obelisk,  108-109  ;  of  Paris  obelisk  .  119-120 

Hittorf,  J.  J., . 82 

Hobhouse  cited  ........  160 

Hoisting.  See  Raising. 

Holley,  A.  L.,  iron  of  the  Egyptians  .  .  .  .170 

Hornblende  in  syenite,  12,  164,  166  ;  in  amphibole- 


granite,  165  ;  in  cements  .  .  .  .  .  .169 

Horses,  ancient  use  of,  .  .  .  .  .  153 

Hospital  at  Luxor,  ........  82 

Howard,  J.  E.,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .172 

Hudson  River  R.  R.,  moving  N.  Y.  obelisk  across,  .  41-42 

Hume,  J.,  .  .  . 98 


PAGE 

Hurlbert,  W.  H.,  preface,  v  ;  negotiations  for  securing 
N.  Y.  obelisk,  2,  4,  5  ;  selecting  its  site  in  N.  Y. 

31  ;  contributes,  box  for  deposit  in  foundation,  33  ; 
gold  plate  with  inscription  describing  removal,  33  ; 
present  at  re-erection  ......  47 

Hydraulic  jacks,  use  in  moving  London  obelisk,  102, 

103,  106  ;  one  deposited  in  pedestal  .  .  .  106 

Hydraulic  pumps,  use  in  removing  N.  Y.  obelisk,  16,  17, 

20,  21,  26,  40,  43,  44,  45  ;  deposit  of  one  in  founda¬ 
tion  . 34 

Hymn  at  presentation  ceremonies,  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  49 

Hyposyenite,  proposed  name . 164 


Ibrahim  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .81 

Imitation  of  Egyptian  obelisks  .....  141 

Implements.  See  Tools. 

Inclined  plane,  use  of,  in  moving  Vatican  obelisk,  112  ; 

probable  use  of,  by  ancients  .  .  .  .  156,  157 

Inclination,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria,  1,  73  ;  of 

Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .110 

India,  obelisks  found  in,  60  ;  methods  of  cleavage  in,  147, 

148  ;  tools  used  in,  151.  See  also  Seringapatam  obe¬ 
lisk. 

Innocent  X  re-erects  Piazza  Navona  obelisk  .  .  135 

Inscriptions,  on  ruins  at  Alexandria,  1  ;  on  medals  com¬ 
memorative  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  54-55  ;  on  crabs  of 
N.  Y.  obelisk,  75  ;  on  obelisks,  51,  59,  61,  151,  152  ; 
Alnwick,  138  ;  Amyrtseus,  138-139  ;  Arles,  141  ; 
Begig,  142  ;  Benevento,  137  ;  Boboli,  137  ;  Borgian, 

137  ;  Catania,  141  ;  Corfe  Castle,  139-141  ;  Constan¬ 
tinople,  125,  126,  159,  160  ;  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neg- 
gah,  144;  Flaminian,  1 30-132  ;  Florence,  137; 
Heliopolis,  124  ;  Karnak,  121  ;  La  Trinita,  135  ; 
Lateran,  127-129  ;  London,  97,  107,  108;  Luxor, 

X19;  Monte  Citorio,  133  ;  Monte  Pincio,  135-136; 

New  York,  4,  13,  17-20,  61-68  ;  Pantheon,  134  ; 

Paris,  92,  93,  94,  95  ;  Piazza  della  Minerva,  133  ; 
Piazza  Navona,  135  ;  San,  142  ;  Sarbut  el-Khadem. 

143,  T44 ;  Vatican,  117-118;  Villa  Mattei,  134; 

Wadi  Nasb,  143,  144;  Wansted,  139;  value  of,  61  ; 
how  translated,  62,  140  ;  fineness  of,  149  ;  that  of 
Prioli  obelisk  never  published,  126  ;  absence  of 
hieroglyphs  from  Vatican,  112,  118;  from  Santa 
Maria  Maggiore  and  Monte  Cavallo,  126.  See  also 
Embellishments  ;  Symbolic  ;  Translation. 

Insurance  on  “  Desssoug,”  27-28  ;  on  “  Cleopatra  ”  .  107 


Interpretation.  See  Translation. 

Iron,  Egyptian  production  of,  170  ;  analysis  of  clamp 


found  under  N.  Y.  obelisk 

170-172 

Iron  peroxide  in  mica  and  felspar  of  syenite 

.  .  161—162 

Iron  tools  used  by  Egyptians 

.  150 

Iron  tracks  ...... 

9,  26,  40,  42,  44 

Isis,  Temple  of, . 

•  i34,  137,  i39 

Ismail,  gift  of  N.  Y.  obelisk 

•  2,  3 

Italian  Consul  at  Alexandria  interferes  with 

removal  of 

N.  Y.  obelisk  ..... 

10,  11 

Italy,  obelisks  in.  See  Albani  ;  Benevento  ;  Borgian  ; 
Florence  ;  Rome. 

Jauna,  D., . 

74 

Johnston,  J.  T., . 

.  48 

Joining  of  blocks  by  ancients 

.  149 

Journal  des  Ddbals  .... 

9o 

Joussouf,  B.,  letter  to  Count  Sebastiani 

.  79 

182 


Index. 


PAGE 

Julian,  Emp.,  cited  .  . . 124 

Julien,  Prof.  A.  J., . 162 

Karnak,  obelisks  of,  78,  no,  120-12 2  ;  temples  of  .  80 

Kavasses  .........  80 

Kennedy,  Dr .,  quoted  ......  149,  15 1 

Khedive.  See  Egyptian  government  ;  Ismail ;  Moham¬ 
med  Ali  ;  Tevvfik  Pacha. 

Kiernan,  F., . 57 

King,  plan  for  transporting  London  obelisk  .  .  .100 

King,  C.,  cited  . . 167 

Kings.  See  Pharaohs. 

Kingston  Hall,  obelisk  at, . 139 

Kinnicutt,  L.  P.,  analysis  of  the  cement  .  .  .  .169 

Kircher,  A.,  cited,  74,  124,  126,  127,  130,  133,  134,  135, 

136,  137,  147 

La  Borde,  de, . 77,  78 

Land  transport,  in  Alexandria,  8,  9,  15  ;  in  N.  Y.,  3r,  42- 

45  ;  in  Paris,  89,  90  ;  ancient  methods  .  .  152,  153 

Landing.  See  Disembarking. 

Largest  known  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .127 

Lateran  obelisk  .  .  no,  118,  127-129,  155-156,  158 

Latin  inscription  on  Constantinople  obelisk  .  .  .160 


Launching,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  16,  20,  21,  22  ;  London  obelisk, 

103,  104 

Lawler’s  Marine  Railway  used  in  disembarking  N.  Y. 

obelisk  .........  40 

Lawsuit  relating  to  salvage  on  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  .  105,107 

Layard,  A.  H.,  cited . 154,  158 

Lead  found  with  iron  clamp  under  N.  Y.  obelisk,  analy¬ 
sis,  . 1 7  2—1 7  3 

Leakage  during  voyage  of  “  Dessoug,”  how  prevented  .  26 

LeBas,  A.,  removal  of  Paris  obelisk,  5,  79  ;  tribute  to, 

93  ;  receives  riband  of  Legion  of  Honor  .  .  93 

Leidy,  Dr.  J.,  cited . 168 

Le  Maire  excavated  N.  Y.  obelisk  to  base  .  .  -74 

Lenormant,  quoted,  75  ;  cited  .  119,  122,  123,  138,  142 

Lepage  receives  cross  of  Legion  of  Honor  93 

Lepsius  cited  .  .  i2r,  122,  124,  134,  139,  142,  144,  151 

Lepsius’  obelisk  .......  141-142 

Letronne,  restores  inscriptions  on  pedestal  of  Corfe  Castle 

obelisk,  139  ;  cited . 156-157 

Letters.  See  Correspondence. 

Levelling,  Hindoo  method . 157-158 

Lever,  use  of,  in  moving  Vatican  obelisk,  112  ;  ancient 

use  of, . 153,  154 

Library  of  Alexandria,  situation, . 1 

Lifting.  See  Raising. 

Lime,  in  mica  and  felspar  of  syenite,  161-162  ;  in  cements.  169 
Limestone,  in  foundation  and  steps  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  18  ; 
Egyptian  quarries  of,  153  ;  analysis  of  that  found 

near  the  Nile . 168 

Livron,  de,  .........  78 

Loading.  See  Embarking. 

Loftie  cited  .........  142 

London  obelisk,  circumstances  of  gift,  3  ;  plan  of  re¬ 
moval,  5,  6  ;  delay  in,  9  ;  its  removal,  51,  96-108  ;  its 
age,  68  ;  inscription  on,  70  ;  fall  of,  73  ;  record  of,  108-109 


Long,  quoted,  74;  cited  ...  69,  126,  138,  149,  160 

Long,  Sir  J.  T.,  fragment  of  obelisk  at  Wansted  .  .  139 

Loring,  C.  H., . 46 

Lotus-flowers  on  obelisks.  .  .  .  .  .  .122 

Louis  XVIII  negotiated  gift  of  obelisk  to  Paris  .  .  77 


PAGE 

Louis  Philippe  present  at  raising  of  Paris  obelisk  .  .  91 

Louvre,  Museum  of,  .  . . 60 

Lowering,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  7,  8,  16,  17,  20  ;  Paris  obelisk, 

81,83-85,86;  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  112-115 

Lucas,  P.  .........  74 

Lupus,  L.,  name  on  Benevento  obelisk  .  .  .  137 

Luxor,  80;  obelisks  at,  3,  61,  1 19-120.  See  also  Paris 
obelisk. 

“  Luxor  ”  (The),  construction  of,  78  ;  behavior  at  sea,  6, 

79 ;  arrival  at  Luxor,  82  ;  opening  bow  to  admit 
obelisk,  87  ;  voyage,  88  ;  disembarking  obelisk  .  89 

Lyman,  D.,  .........  56 


McCook,  A.  G.,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -57 

Machinery,  for  removing  N.  Y.  obelisk,  8,  T3,  42,  45  ; 

Paris  obelisk,  82,  83,  84,  90,  92  ;  London  obelisk, 

105,  106;  Vatican  obelisk,  112,  113,  114;  used  by 
ancient  Egyptians  .....  153,  154,  156 

Mackau,  de,  .........  78 

Magnesia,  in  syenite,  162  ;  in  cements  .  .  .  .169 

Magnesium  carbonate  in  the  limestone  found  near  the 


Nile 


quoted, 


.  168 

166,  167 
•  i34 

108 
.  151 

162 
169 

158 


Magnetite,  in  amphibole-granite,  165  ;  in  syenite 
Mahutean  obelisk 
Mallet  cited 

Mallets  used  by  Hindoos 
Manganese  oxide  in  syenite 
Manganic  oxide  in  cements 
Marcellinus,  A.,  cited,  127,  130,  152 
Mariette,  cited,  68,  71,  72,  121,  153;  discovers  obelisk  at 

Drah  Abou ’1  Neggah,  144  ;  quoted  .  .  .  122 

Marine  railway,  for  disembarking  N.  Y.  obelisk,  39-40  ; 

for  transport  in  N.  Y.  .  .  .  .  .  42-43 

Masara,  quarries  of,  .......  153 

Masonic  emblems  on  N.  Y.  obelisk,  18-20  ;  emblems  de¬ 
posited  in  foundation,  33  ;  ceremonies  in  laying  cor¬ 
ner-stone,  34-38.  See  also  Grand  Lodge. 

Masonic  skill  of  ancients  ......  149 

Mathematics,  Egyptian  knowledge  of,  .  .  .  157 

Mazacqui  .........  80 

Mechanical  appliances  known  to  Egyptians  .  153-154,  157 

Medals,  deposited  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  33  ; 

Paris  obelisk,  9T  ;  Vatican  obelisk,  113,  116;  com¬ 
memorative  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  ....  53-56 

Mehemet.  See  Mohammed. 

Men  anciently  employed  in  moving  large  stones  .  153,  154 

Meneptah  I,  Vatican  obelisk  erected  in  reign  of,  .  .118 

Metals  found  with  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria,  analysis 

of, . 161-175 

Methven,  Capt.,  plan  for  removing  London  obelisk  .  100 

Metropolitan  Museum,  N.  Y.,  desirability  of  selecting  a 
site  near  it,  31  ;  use  for  presentation  ceremonies 
Mica  in  syenite,  161,  163  ;  in  amphibole-granite 
Microline,  in  syenite,  166  ;  in  Germantown  amphibole- 

granite  . 

Mimaut  ......... 

Mimerel,  appointed  to  remove  Paris  obelisk,  78  ;  resigns 
position  ......... 

Mining,  copper,  ........ 

Models  of  machinery  for  removal,  of  Paris  obelisk,  92  ; 
of  London  obelisk  deposited  in  its  pedestal,  106  ;  of 

Vatican  obelisk . . 

Mohammed  Ali,  gift  of  Paris  and  London  obelisks,  3,52, 

•  79.  96,  97-98 


48 

165 

167 

78 

79 
T43 


hi 


Index. 


183 


PAGE 

Mohammed  ben-Abd-alrahin,  quoted  .  .  .  .123 

Mohammedans,  method  of  spending  their  Sabbath  .  14 

Monte  Cavallo  obelisk  ......  126-127 

Monte  Citorio  obelisk  ......  133,  158 

Monte  Coelio,  former  site  of  Villa  Mattei  obelisk  .  .  134 
Monte  Pincio  obelisk  ......  135-136 

Monuments,  obelisks  the  most  common  form  of,  .  .  61 

Morgan,  H.  de,  translation  of  inscriptions  on  N.  Y. 

obelisk  .........  62 

Mortars,  analysis,  .......  168-170 

Mosaic  pavement  found  around  steps  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  12 

Mules,  ancient  use  of,  in  moving  obelisks  .  .  .  154 

Mummulite  .........  168 

Mummy-cases  of  Antef  .......  144 

Murray  cited  .....  126,  127,  141,  143 

Muscovite  in  amphibole-granite  .  .  .  .  .167 

Mythology.  See  Egyptian. 


Nahasb  obelisk  .......  143-144 

Napier,  Lord,  visits  the  “  Dessoug  ”  ....  29 

Naples.  See  Borgian  obelisk 

Napoleon  I  planned  removal  of  obelisk  to  Paris  .  52,  77 

Nationality  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  .  .  .  .  23,24 

Necropolis  of  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah  ....  144 

Nectanebo  I,  Prioli  obelisk  erected  in  reign  of,  126; 
Amyrtseus  obelisks  ascribed  to,  .... 

Negotiations,  leading  to  gift  and  removal  of  N.  Y. 

obelisk,  2-5  ;  for  removal  of  London  obelisk  . 

Nelson,  Lord ,  ......... 

“  Nettuno,”  The  ........ 

New  Testament  deposited  in  the  foundation  of  N.  Y. 

obelisk . 

New  York  obelisk,  its  removal,  1-58  ;  its  archaeology, 

59-76  ;  inscriptions,  61-68  ;  historical  sketch,  68- 
76  ;  first  given  to  France,  77  ;  relinquished  by 
France,  79  ;  analysis  of  metals,  etc.,  found  with  it,  161-175 
New  York  Herald  ........  65 

New  York  World,  account  of  presentation  ceremonies,  48-56 
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  168 


138 

97-78 

97 

29 

33 


no 
1 36 


Newbold  cited  ........ 

Nicholas  V  planned  re-erection  of  Vatican  obelisk 
Niebuhr,  C.,  cited,  74,  124  ;  discovered  obelisks  at  Cairo, 

Nile,  use  of,  for  floating  “  Luxor,”  82,  88  ;  ancient  use  of, 

for  transporting  obelisks  .  .  .  .  .  -151 

Nineveh,  removal  of  obelisk  to,  .  .  .  .  51 

Norden  ..........  74 

North  River  landing,  N.  Y.,  why  selected  .  .  31 

Northumberland,  Duke  of  ,  obelisks  at  houses  of,  .  137,  138 

Notes  on  ancient  methods  of  quarrying,  transporting,  and 

erecting  obelisks  ......  146-160 


Number  of  obelisks  removed  from  Egypt 


51,  61 


Obelisks  removed  from  Egypt,  51  ;  record,  1 19-145  ;  table 
of  dimensions  and  weight,  145.  See  also  Albani ; 
Alnwick  ;  Arles  ;  Assouan  ;  Begig  ;  Benevento;  Bor¬ 
gian  ;  British  Museum  ;  Cairo  ;  Catania  ;  Constan¬ 
tinople;  Corfe  Castle;  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah  ;  Egypt ; 
Esmeade  ;  Florence  ;  Fragments  ;  Heliopolis  ;  In¬ 
dia  ;  Karnak  ;  Lateran  ;  Lepsius’;  London  ;  Luxor  ; 
Monte  Cavallo;  Monte  Citorio  ;  Monte  Pincio  ;  New 
York;  Pantheon;  Paris;  Philse;  Piazza  della  Minerva; 
Piazza  del  Popolo  ;  Piazza  Navona  ;  Rome  ;  San  ; 
Santa  Maria  Maggiore  ;  Sarbut  el-Khadem  ;  Seringa- 
patam  ;  Sion  House;  Trinita;  Vatican  ;  Villa  Mattei 
Wadi  Nasb  ;  Wanst^d. 


PAGE 

Obstruction.  See  Opposition. 

Oldest  known  obelisks  .....  122,  141,  144 

“  Olga  ”  (The)  deserts  the  “  Cleopatra”  .  .  .  104-105 

Oligoclase,  from  the  syenite,  analysis,  162,  166  ;  in  am¬ 
phibole-granite  . 165 

Oliphant,  L.,  cited  ......  .  142 

On,  Temple  of.  See  Heliopolis. 

Opening,  the  “  Dessoug  ”  to  admit  the  obelisk,  7,  26  ;  for 
disembarking,  40  ;  the  “  Luxor  ”  to  admit  the  Paris 
obelisk,  87  ;  for  disembarking  ....  89 

Opposition  to  removing  N.  Y.  obelisk,  2,9-13,  16,  17,  21, 


23, 120 

Ornamentations.  See  Embellishments. 

Orthoclase,  in  syenite,  164  ;  in  amphibole-granite  .  .165 

Orville,  d’,  cited  ........  141 

Osborn  quoted . 68 

Overthrow.  See  Fall. 

Oxen,  ancient  use  of,  .....  153,  154 


Paints  on  Egyptian  images,  analysis,  .  .  .  173-175 

Pamphilian  obelisk  .  . . 135 

Pantheon  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .134 

Paris  obelisk,  circumstances  of  the  gift,  3  ;  plan  of 
removal,  5,  6  ;  delay  in,  9  ;  how  turned,  44  ;  its 

removal .  .52,  77-95 

Parker  cited,  62,  68,  126,  127,  133,  134,  135,  136,  138, 


1 5 3>  iS5 

Parker,  T.  H.,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -57 

Paton,  W.  H., . 

Pedestal,  of  Karnak  obelisk,  122  ;  of  Heliopolis  obelisk, 

123  ;  of  Constantinople  obelisk,  1 24-1 25  ;  of  Corfe 
Castle  obelisk  ........ 

Pedestal  of  London  obelisk,  inscription  placed  on,  by 
English,  in  1802,  97  ;  its  location  now  unknown, 

97  ;  size  of  new  one,  106  ;  deposit  of  objects  in, 

106  ;  inscription  on,  ...... 

Pedestal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12  ;  its  removal,  17  ;  trans¬ 
portation  and  embarking,  24-25  ;  weight,  25,  32  ; 
disembarking  and  transportation,  31-32  ;  placing  in 

position . 

Pedestal  of  Paris  obelisk,  89  ;  weight,  90 
objects  in,  91  ;  inscription  on, 

Persia,  obelisks  found  in,  ... 

Pharaoh’s  Needles  ..... 

Pharaohs,  connection  with  obelisks 
Philse,  original  site  of  Corfe  Castle  obelisk 
Philse  obelisk  ...... 

Phoebus  identified  with  the  sun 
Phosphoric  acid  in  cements 
Photographs,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  taken  before  re 

taken  during  re-erection,  47  ;  of  the  inscriptions  and 
figures  on,  61  ;  deposited  in  foundation,  33  ;  de¬ 
posited  in  pedestal  of  London  obelisk  .  .  .  106 

Piankhi,  King ,  visit  to  Heliopolis  ....  71-72 

Piazza  del  Popolo  obelisk  .  .  .  118,  130-132,  158 

Piazza  della  Minerva  obelisk . 1 33-1 34 

Piazza  di  San  Pietro,  site  of  Vatican  obelisk,  .  .  no,  113 

Piazza  Navona  obelisk  .... 

Pigments.  See  Paints. 

Pislazite  in  the  syenite  .... 

Pitching.  See  Rolling. 

Pitman,  Capt.  J.,  analysis  of  iron  clamp  found  under 

N.  Y.  obelisk . 172 

Pius  VI,  inscription  on  La  Trinita  obelisk  .  .  .  135 


57 


i39 


107 


•  39 
deposit  of 

•  92,93,94 
60 

•  123 
59-60 

•  i39 

•  M3 

•  75 

.  .  169 

moval,  12  ; 


135 


167 


184 


Index . 


PAGE 

Pius  VII  re-erects  Monte  Pincio  obelisk  .  .  .  .136 

Place  de  la  Concorde  chosen  as  site  for  Paris  obelisk  .  89 

Plagioclase,  from  the  syenite,  analysis,  162  ;  in  German¬ 
town  amphibole-granite . 167 

Plaster  of  Paris  in  the  mortar . 169 

Pliny,  quoted,  68,  133,  154,  155,  156,  158;  cited,  70,  112, 


1 18,  130,  133 

Pococke,  quoted,  74  ;  cited . 136,  139 

Polishing  obelisks  .  .  . . 149 

Pontius  re-erects  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria  .  .  .72 

Pontoons  used  in  lifting  and  transporting  N.  Y.  obelisk,  40-41 
Porphyry  found  with  syenite  .  .  .  .  .  .163 

Postal  service  of  Egypt . 22 

Potash,  in  syenite,  162  ;  in  cements  .  .  .  .169 

Power.  See  Force  ;  Hydraulic. 


Prayers,  at  laying  corner-stone  N.  Y.  obelisk,  35  ;  at  pres¬ 
entation  ceremonies,  49  ;  at  lowering  Vatican  obelisk,  1x4 


Presentation  ceremonies,  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  .  48-56 

Price,  F.,  tribute  to, . v,  9 

Prioli  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .126 

Priolus,  A.,  erects  Prioli  obelisk . 126 

Prisse  cited  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  137 

Proportions  in  form  of  obelisks  .  .  .  60-61,  112 

Psametik  II,  cartouch  on  obelisks . 134 

Ptolemy  Euergetes  II  erects  Corfe  Castle  obelisk  .  .  139 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  transportation  by,  .  .  154-155 


Pulley,  use  of,  by  ancient  Egyptians,  154.  See  also  Tackles. 
Pumps.  See  Hydraulic  pumps. 

Pyramidion,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  61,  62  ;  analysis  of  its 
cement,  169  ;  Paris  obelisk,  82  ;  London  obelisk, 

101  ;  Vatican  obelisk,  112  ;  Luxor  obelisks,  119  ; 
Karnak  obelisks,  121  ;  Heliopolis  obelisk,  123  ;  Con¬ 
stantinople  obelisk,  125  ;  Piazza  della  Minerva 
obelisk,  133  ;  Pantheon  obelisk,  134  ;  Corfe  Castle 
obelisk,  139  ;  Wansted  fragment  ....  139 

Pyramids,  their  symbolic  character,  35,  36,  59,  60  ;  when 

quarried,  153  ;  ancient  method  of  lifting  stones  for,  154 
Pyrite  in  amphibole-granite  .  .  .  .  .  .165 

Quarries  of  Masara  and  Hammamat  ....  153 

Quarrying  obelisks,  ancient  methods,  .  .  .  146-151 

Quartz,  in  syenite,  161,  163,  164,  166;  in  amphibole- 

granite,  165,  167  ;  in  cements  .  .  .  .  .169 

Quincy,  Q.  de,  cited . 118 

Raft,  for  removing  Paris  obelisk,  proposed,  77-78  ;  its 

ancient  use  in  moving  obelisks  .  .  .  152,  154 

Railway.  See  Marine. 

Raising,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  8,  13,  14,  25,  40,  45,  46  ;  Paris 
obelisk,  90-92  ;  London  obelisk,  105-107  ;  Vatican 
obelisk,  111,  112,  113,  114,  116  ;  large  blocks,  ancient 
method,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .154 

Rameseion  . . 80,  81 

Ramses  II,  inscription  of,  on  N.  Y.  obelisk,  62-68  ;  on 
Paris  obelisk,  86  ;  on  London  obelisk,  108  ;  on 
Flaminian  obelisk,  132  ;  on  La  Trinita  obelisk,  135  ; 
erects  Luxor  obelisks,  119  ;  restores  Lateran  obelisk, 

127  ;  erects,  Villa  Mattei  and  Pantheon  obelisks,  134  ; 
Boboli  obelisk,  137  ;  San  obelisks,  142  ;  weight  of 


statue  of, . 153 

Ramses  III,  name  on  Luxor  obelisks  .  .  .  .119 

Ramses  IV . 121 

Ramses  V . I2i 

Ramses  VI  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .121 


PAGE 

Ransom,  M.  W.,  letter  from  Mr.  Evarts  to,  .  -57 

Rawlinson,  G.,  quoted,  62,  146,  157  ;  cited,  71,  122,  127, 

I33,  x34>  135,  x38>  144.  15°.  x53 
Reagan,  J.  H.,  letter  from  Mr.  Evarts  to,  .  .  -57 

Record  of  all  Egyptian  obelisks,  .  .  .  .  1 19-145 

Re-creation,  obelisks  symbolic  of,  .  .  .  .  1,59 

Re-erecting,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  46-48  ;  Paris  obelisk,  89-92  ; 
London  obelisk,  105-107  ;  Vatican  obelisk,  110-118; 
Lateran,  Santa  Maria  Maggiore,  and  Monte  Cavallo 
obelisks,  126,  127;  Pantheon  obelisk,  134;  Benevento 
obelisk,  136,  137  ;  Arles  obelisk,  141  ;  obelisks  at 
Alexandria  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .108 

Refitting  the  “  Dessoug  ”  ......  23 

Reft.  See  Crack. 

Registry  granted  to  the  “  Dessoug  ”  .  .  .  56-57 

Relics,  broken  from  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria,  1;  from 
London  obelisk,  102;  found  in  excavating,  12;  placed 
in  cross  on  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .117 

Religion.  See  Egyptian  mythology. 

Removal,  of  the  New  York  obelisk,  1-58  ;  its  removal 
from  Heliopolis  to  Alexandria,  36,  52,  72  ;  Paris 
obelisk,  77-95  ;  London  obelisk,  96-108  ;  Vatican 
obelisk,  110-116  ;  Constantinople  obelisk,  124  ;  San¬ 
ta  Maria  Maggiore  and  Monte  Cavallo  obelisks,  126; 
Lateran  obelisk,  127;  Flaminian  obelisk,  130  ;  Monte 
Citorio  obelisk,  133  ;  Piazza  della  Minerva  and  Pan¬ 
theon  obelisks,  133,  134  ;  La  Trinita  obelisk,  135  ; 
Monte  Pincio  obelisk,  136  ;  Boboli  obelisk,  137  ; 
Alnwick  obelisk,  137  ;  Amyrtaeus  obelisks,  139  ; 

Corfe  Castle  obelisk,  139  ;  of  obelisks  from  Egypt, 


51,  61  ;  to  Alexandria,  108  ; 


from  quarries,  149  ; 
See  also  Transporta- 


ancient  methods  of,  151-156. 
tion. 

Reproduction,  obelisks  symbolic  of,  .  .  .  .  1,  59 

Resistance  of  rollers  increased  by  iron  channels  and 

cannon-balls  ........  42 

Resistance  to  interference  with  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12,  15 
Resurrection,  Egyptian  belief  in,  .  .  .  -59 

Riaz  Pacha,  letter  to  governor  of  Alexandria  .  .  10 

Richards,  Prof.  R.  H.,  analysis,  of  mortars  and  cements, 
168-170  ;  of  lead  found  with  iron  under  N.  Y.  obe¬ 
lisk  ........  172-173 

Robinson  cited  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  143 

Roebling’s  Sons,  J.  A.,  .  .  .  .  .  .  9 

Rolland,  Baron ,  plan  for  removing  Paris  obelisk  .  .  78 

Rollers,  for  transport  of  obelisk  in  N.  Y.,  42,  43  ;  use  by 

ancient  Egyptians . 153,  154,  157 

Rolling  of  “  Cleopatra  ”  ......  101,  103 

Roman,  inscriptions  on  ruins  at  Alexandria,  x  ;  re-erec- 
tion  of  obelisks  at  Alexandria,  1  ;  mode  of  erecting 
obelisks,  45,  158-160  ;  mythology,  75  ;  use  of  Monte 
Citorio  obelisk,  133  ;  origin  of  Catania  and  Arles 
obelisks,  141  ;  transportation  of  obelisks  .  .  155-156 

Rome,  removal  of  obelisks  to,  51  ;  obelisks  in,  70,  126- 
1 36,  155.  See  also  Esmeade  ;  Fragments  ;  Lateran  ; 
Monte  Cavallo  ;  Monte  Citorio  ;  Monte  Pincio  ; 
Pantheon  ;  Piazza  della  Minerva  ;  Piazza  Navona  ; 
Piazza  del  Popolo  ;  Santa  Maria  Maggiore  ;  Trin¬ 
ita  (La)  ;  Vatican  ;  Villa  Mattei. 

Rosellini,  plate  of,  . . 12 1 

Rosenbusch,  H.,  cited  .......  167 


Rosetta  stone,  a  key  in  translating  hieroglyphs 
Rotation.  See  Turning. 

Roziere,  de,  ancient  method  of  quarrying 


.  62,  140 

147,  148,  149 


Index. 


185 


PAGE 


Roziere  cited  . 162,  164,  165,  168 

Riippell  cited  ...  ....  143 

Ruins,  in  Alexandria,  1  ;  in  Egypt,  80  ;  at  Karnak  .  120 

Russegger,  J.,  cited,  162,  163,  168  ;  quoted  .  .  .  165 

Russian  aid  in  resisting  interference  with  removal  of  N. 

Y.  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  15 

Sacy,  S.  de,  cited  .  .  .  .  .  .  74,  123 

St.  Maur,  V.  de,  removing  Paris  obelisk,  78  ;  cited  .  12 1 

St.  Peter’s  Square,  Rome,  site  of  Vatican  obelisk  .  109,  IT3 

Sai's,  probable  original  site  of  Piazza  della  Minerva  obe¬ 
lisk  133 

Salustian  obelisk  ........  135 

Salvage  on  the  “  Cleopatra  ”  .  .  .  .  .  105,  107 

San  obelisks  ........  142-143 

Sand,  bags  of,  use  of,  by  ancients  to  raise  heavy  weights, 

157  ;  in  the  mortars  .  .  .  .  .  .169 

Sanderson,  J.,  quoted . 125 

Sandstone,  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12  ;  pedestals 

of,  123,  139  ;  obelisks  of,  143,  146  ;  quarries  of,  149 

Santa  Maria  Maggiore  obelisk  .  .  .  118,126-127 

Sarbut  el-Khadem,  obelisk  of,  .....  143 

Sardanapalus,  removal  of  obelisk  to  Nineveh  .  .  51 

Saw  used  in  cleavage  of  obelisks  .  .  .  .  .148 

Scarabee  found  in  excavating  .  .  .  .  12,  59,  60 

School-boys,  presentation  to,  of  medals  commemorative  of 

N.  Y.  obelisk  .......  54-56 


Schroeder,  Lieut.  S.,  tribute  to,  v  ;  accepts  position  of 
assistant,  9  ;  refits  the  “  Dessoug,”  23  ;  removal  of 
Paris  obelisk,  77-95  ;  removal  of  London  obelisk, 


96-108;  re-erection  of  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  110-118 

Sculptures.  See  Inscriptions. 

Sebastiani,  Count,  letter  from  Boghoz  Joussouf  to,  .  79 

Seizure  of  the  “  Dessoug,”  how  avoided  ...  23 

Semiramis,  Queen  ........  154 

Separation  of  obelisks  from  their  quarries.  See  Cleavage. 
Sepulchral  monuments,  obelisks  as,  .  .  .  .61 

Seringapatam  obelisk  .  .  .  ■  .  148,  153,  157 

Sesostris,  Monte  Citorio  obelisk  attributed  to,  .  133 

Seti  I,  obelisks  erected  by,  .  .  .  70,  130,  135 

Shadrach,  idol  of,  identified  as  an  obelisk  ...  60 

Shaft  of  “  Dessoug,”  breakage,  .....  29 

Shape  of  obelisks.  See  Form. 

Sharpe,  cited,  73,  74,  137,  138,  154  ;  quoted  .  .  .156 

Shaw,  W.  J.,  translation  of  inscription  on  model  of 

Temple  of  the  Sun  ......  70-71 


Sheathing,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  13  ;  Paris  obelisk,  82  ;  London 

obelisk,  99  ;  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  .  113 

Shipping.  See  Embarking. 


Ship’s  papers  of  the  “  Dessoug  ”  .  .  .  .  .24 

Sicily.  See  Catania  obelisk. 

Silica,  in  the  syenite,  161,  162  ;  in  the  cements  .  .169 

Silicic  acid  in  cements  .  .  .  .  .  .  .169 

Silicic  oxide  in  the  syenite  .  .  .  .  .  .162 

Silicious  residue  in  the  mortar  .  .  .  .  .168 

Sinaitic  Peninsula,  obelisks  in.  See  Sarbut  el-Khadem  ; 

Wadi  Nasb. 

Sion  House  obelisk  .......  138 

Site  of,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  30,  31  ;  Paris  obelisk,  89  ;  London 

obelisk,  105;  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  .110 

Sixtus  V  re-erects,  Vatican  obelisk,  no;  Villa  Mattei 

obelisk . .  .134 


Size,  of  obelisks,  60,  61,  no  ;  table,  145  ;  Assyrian,  158  ; 
Corfe  Castle,  139  ;  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah,  144  ;  Heli- 


PAGE 

opolis,  123  ;  Lepsius’,  142  ;  London,  101,  106  ;  Monte 
Citorio,  158;  New  York,  20;  Paris,  82,  83  ;  Piazza 
del  Popolo,  158  ;  San,  142,  143  ;  Sarbut  el-Khadem, 

143  ;  Vatican,  112,  115,  116  ;  Wansted,  139;  of  an¬ 
cient  boats  of  Egypt,  15 1,  152  ;  of  blocks  moved  by 
ancient  Egyptians,  152,  153  ;  of  vessels  used  by  Ro¬ 
mans  to  transport  obelisks  ....  155,  156 


152,  i53>  J54 


Sledges  for  moving  obelisks 
Smallest  obelisk 
Smith,  Capt.,  . 

Smith,  G.,  cited 
Smith,  P.,  cited 
Smith,  W.,  quoted 
Smith  &  Sons,  W.  B 

Smyth,  Adm.,  plan  for  removing  London  obelisk 
Snowden,  J.  R.,  cited  ..... 

Society  for  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  deposits 
documents  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk 
Soda,  in  syenite,  162  ;  in  cements  . 

Sodium  oxide,  proportion  in  felspar  of  the  syenite 
Softening  stone  before  cutting 
Specific  gravity,  of  Paris  obelisk,  83  ;  of  London  obelisk, 
102  ;  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  161,  164  ;  of  limestone  found 
near  the  Nile,  168  ;  of  lead  found  with  iron  clamps 
under  N.  Y.  obelisk,  172  ;  of  bronze  in  crabs  . 
Spectators.  See  Visitors. 

Sphinxes,  symbolic  character,  60  ;  in  Egyptian  temples, 
72  ;  on  London  obelisk 
Spon  and  Wheeler,  copy  of  plate  from, 

Squalls  during  voyage  of  “  Dessoug  ” 

Squeezes  made  from  the  N.  Y.  obelisk 


156 

142 
172 
154 
158 
68,  69 

32 

98 
117 

33 
169 
162 
!5° 


Stability,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  45,  48 
the  “  Cleopatra  ” 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  quoted 
Stanton,  Gen. ,  . 


of  London  obelisk  in 

101 
96,  124 

.  98 


i73 


107 
iS9 
29)  3° 
61 


Staten  Island,  obelisk  disembarked  at,  .  .  39-40 

Steam-engine  used,  in  transport  of  obelisk  in  N.  Y.,  43  ; 
in  moving  Paris  obelisk,  90.  See  also  Marine  rail¬ 
way. 

Stebbins,  H.  G.,  negotiations  for  securing  N.  Y.  obelisk, 

2-5  ;  site  for,  31  ;  presentation  ceremonies,  48  ;  letter 
to  Mr.  Sullivan  .......  50 

Steel  tools  used  by  Egyptians  ....  150,  15 1 

Steeples  represent  same  idea  as  obelisks  ...  60 

Stelae  ....... 

Steltzner,  Dr.  A.,  analysis  of  syenite 
Steps,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  12  ;  removing,  17 

24  ;  weight,  27  ;  disembarking,  31  ;  laying,  in  N.  Y., 

34  ;  of  London  obelisk,  106  ;  of  Constantinople 
obelisk  ........ 

Sterne,  L.,  negotiations  relating  to  gift  of  N.  Y.  obelisk 
Stone-cutting,  of  the  Egyptians,  150  ;  in  India 
Storm  in  voyage  of  the  “  Cleopatra  ”... 

Strabo  quoted . 

Struts  for  supporting  Vatican  obelisk  in  lowering 
Stuart,  V.,  discovered  fallen  obelisks  at  Drah  Abou  ’1 

Neggah . 144 

Submarine  work  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .16 

Subsidence  of  land  around  the  obelisk  .  .  .  1,12 

Suetonius  cited . 155 

Sullivan,  A.  S.,  48  ;  letter  from  Mr.  Stebbins,  50;  presents 

medals  commemorative  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  5 3-56 

Sulphuric  acid  in  cements . 169 

Sun-dial,  use  of  Monte  Citorio  obelisk  as,  133 


122,  142,  143 
162-168 
embarking, 


124 

2 

151 

104 

72 

”5 


1 86 


Index. 


PAGE 

Sun,  Temple  of,  .  .  .  4,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72,  122,  134 

Sun-worship  of  Egyptians . 59,  69,  75 

Sunday-work  in  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  13 

Supports,  for  N.  Y.  obelisk,  8,  12,  75;  of  London  obelisk, 

108  ;  of  obelisks  in  quarrying,  149.  See  also  Crabs. 
Syene.  See  Assouan. 

Syenite,  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  17,  18  ;  obelisks 
of,  122,  123,  136,  137,  139  ;  characteristics  of,  146  ; 
economy  in  use  of,  149  ;  where  found,  162,  163  ; 
choice  of,  for  obelisks,  60,  16 1  ;  analysis  of,  1 61- 168. 

See  also  Amphibole. 

Symbolic  character,  of  obelisks,  1,  4,  36,  59,  60  ;  of 

pyramids,  59,  60  ;  of  sphinxes  ....  60 

Table  of  dimensions  and  weight  of  obelisks  .  .  .  145 

Tackles,  for  moving  N.Y.  obelisk,  14  ;  breakage  of  one,  15; 
for  moving  Paris  obelisk,  82,  83,  84,  86,  87,  89,  90  ;  for 
moving  Vatican  obelisk,  112,  115.  See  also  Pulleys. 

Tanis.  See  San. 

Taylor,  Baron,  removal  of  Paris  obelisk  ...  77,  78 

Tel-et-Mai,  chapel  of,  size,  .  .  .  .  .  .  153 

Telephone  system,  failure  of  attempt  to  secure  it  for  de¬ 
posit  in  the  foundation  ......  33 

Temper  of  Egyptian  tools  ......  150 

Temple,  at  Luxor,  118  ;  of  Isis,  134,  137,  139;  of  the 

Sun  .  .  .  .  4,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72,  122,  134 

Temples,  associated  with  obelisks,  68,  72  ;  at  Karnak  .  80 

Testing  apparatus  by  Fontana  .....  117 

Tewfik  Pacha,  confirms  gift  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  10  ;  Mr. 
Gorringe’s  interviews  with,  10,  28  ;  thanks  of  Con¬ 
gress  to,  57,  58  ;  tributes  to,  ...  49,  52,  80 

Thames  Embankment  selected  as  site  for  London  obe¬ 
lisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  105 

Thebaid,  Alnwick  obelisk  found  in  the,  .  .  .  137 

Thebes,  obelisks  at,  2  ;  site  of  Lateran  obelisk,  127.  See 
also  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah  ;  Karnak  ;  Luxor. 

Theodosius,  Emp.,  re-erects  Constantinople  obelisk  .  124,  159 

Thothmes  I,  obelisks  at  Karnak  .  .  .  .  120,  121 

Thothmes  III,  erects  N.  Y.  obelisk,  4  ;  name  on,  62-68  ; 
his  character,  52,  62  ;  cartouch  on  obelisks,  59  ;  obe¬ 
lisks  erected  by,  68,  108  ;  restores  Temple  of  the  Sun, 

70  ;  cartouch  on  London  obelisk,  108  ;  Karnak  obe¬ 
lisks  of,  122;  erects  Constantinople  obelisk,  124; 
name  on,  125  ;  ordered  Lateran  obelisk,  127  ;  name 


on,  127  ;  mining  in  his  reign  .  .  .  .  .143 

Thothmes  IV  erects  Lateran  obelisk  .  .  .  .127 

Thomas,  T.,  .........  49 

Tiberius,  Emp.,  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  to  Alexandria  in 

reign  of,  .........  4 

Tide,  use  of,  in  disembarking  N.  Y.  obelisk  39 

Timber  for  use  in  moving,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  9,  17,  26  ;  Paris 
obelisk,  85,  88  ;  London  obelisk,  107,  108  ;  Vatican 

obelisk . .  .  .  .112 

Time,  allowed  for  removal  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  5  ;  of  begin¬ 


ning  active  operations,  9  ;  occupied  in  obtaining 
possession  of  obelisk,  10  ;  in  turning  it,  14,  15  ;  in 
diving  operations,  16;  in  lowering  obelisk,  21  ;  in 
launching  caisson,  21,  22  ;  in  waiting  for  use  of  dock 
at  Alexandria,  24,  25  ;  in  embarking  obelisk,  26  ; 
of  setting  sail,  28  ;  of  arrival  at  N.  Y.,  30  ;  of  laying 
foundation  and  corner-stone,  34  ;  occupied  in  dis¬ 
embarking  obelisk,  40  ;  in  transport  through  N.  Y., 

44,  45  ;  in  re-erection,  46  ;  in  entire  removal,  47  ; 
of  presentation  ceremonies  .....  48 


PAGE 

Time,  occupied  in  removing  Paris  obelisk,  78,  88,  91,  92  ; 
of  first  attempt  to  remove  London  obelisk,  96  ;  occu¬ 
pied  in  its  removal,  102,  103,  105,  106,  107,  108  ;  of 
re-erecting  Vatican  obelisk,  no,  113,  116,  118  ;  oc¬ 
cupied  in  quarrying  and  erecting  Karnak  obelisks, 

122  ;  when  Heliopolis  obelisk,  123  ;  of  removing 
Constantinople  obelisk,  124  ;  Santa  Maria  Maggiore 
and  Monte  Cavallo  obelisks,  126,  127  ;  Lateran  obe¬ 
lisk,  127  ;  Flaminian  obelisk,  130  ;  Monte  Citorio 
obelisk,  133  ;  Piazza  della  Minerva  obelisk,  134  ;  of 
re-erecting  Pantheon  obelisk,  134 ;  Villa  Mattei 
obelisk,  134  ;  of  removing  La  Trinita  obelisk,  135  ; 
Monte  Pincio  obelisk,  136  ;  Benevento  and  Aln¬ 
wick  obelisks,  137  ;  Amyrtseus,  Corfe  Castle,'  and 
Wansted  obelisks,  139  ;  Arles  obelisk,  141  ;  re-erect¬ 
ing  Constantinople  obelisk,  160.  See  also  Age  ; 

Delays. 

Titanite,  in  the  syenite,  166,  167  ;  in  Germantown  amphi- 

bole-granite  ........  167 

Toernebom  cited  ........  166 

Tomlinson,  G.,  translation  of  inscriptions  on  Flaminian 

obelisk  ........  131-132 

Tools  used,  by  Egyptians,  149,  150,  151  ;  by  Hindoos  .  151 

Tott,  Baron  de,  ........  74 

Track,  for  embarking  N.  Y.  obelisk,  25-26  ;  for  moving  it 

in  N.  Y.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  32 

Tracks  (channel)  .....  9,  26,  40,  42,  44 

Translation  of  inscriptions,  on  N.  Y.  obelisk,  62-68  ;  on 
model  of  Sun  Temple,  70-71  ;  on  N.  Y.  and  London 
obelisks,  73,  74  ;  on  crabs,  76  ;  on  Paris  obelisk,  94, 

95  ;  on  London  obelisk,  108  ;  on  Luxor  obelisk,  120  ; 
on  Karnak  obelisks,  1 21,  122  ;  on  Constantinople  obe¬ 
lisk,  125,  126,  160  ;  on  Lateran  obelisk,  127-129  ;  on 
Flaminian  obelisk,  130-132  ;  on  Alnwick  obelisk, 

138  ;  on  pedestal  of  Corfe  Castle  obelisk,  140,  141  ; 
on  Drah  Abou  ’1  Neggah  obelisk,  144  ;  how  done,  62,  140 
Transportation  of  obelisks,  ancient  methods,  151-156. 

See  also  Land  transport  ;  Removal. 

Trestle  for  transport  of  obelisk  through  Central  Park  44-45 
Trinita  (La)  dei  Monti  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  135 

Truss-cradle  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  15,  16 

Tupinier,  Baron,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -78 

Turn-table  .........  27 

Turning,  N.  Y.  obelisk,  13,  14-16,  26,  27  ;  Paris  obelisk, 

81,  83-86,  90,  91  ;  London  obelisk,  102  ;  Vatican 


obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  114,  115 

Turning  apparatus  in  transport  of  obelisk  in  N.  Y.  .  45 

Turning  structure  .  .  .  7,  8,  9,  *3,  *4,  25,  39,  45 

Turnings  in  route,  in  N.  Y.,  42,  43,  44  ;  in  Paris  .  .  89 

Una,  inscriptions  of,  .......  152 

Unfinished  obelisk  at  Syene . 143 

Ungarelli  cited  .  .  .  127,  130,  133,  134,  135,  137 

United  States  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  declined  to  con¬ 
tribute  articles  for  deposit  in  the  foundation  .  .  33 

United  States  Congress,  grants  American  registry  to  “  Des- 

soug,”  56-57  ;  thanks  Khedive  for  gift  .  .  5 7 — 5 8 

United  States  flag  raised  on  the  “  Dessoug  ”  23 

United  States  government  accepts  N.  Y.  obelisk,  4  ;  de¬ 
posits  articles  in  foundation  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  .  .  33 

Unloading.  See  Disembarking. 

Urbino,  fragment  of  obelisk  erected  at,  .  .  .  .  136 


Usorken  (Usortesen)  I,  name  on  N.  Y.  obelisk,  68  ;  erects 

Heliopolis  obelisk,  122,  124;  erects  Begig  obelisk  .  142 


Index. 


187 


PAGE 

Vanderbilt,  W.  H.,  tribute  to,  from  Mr.  Hurlbert,  v  ; 
guarantees  expense  of  moving  N.  Y.  obelisk,  2  ; 
letter  to  Mr.  Gorringe  and  reply,  5  ;  selecting  site 
in  N.  Y.,  31  ;  tribute  from  Mr.  Evarts,  51  ;  from 


Mr.  Sullivan,  54  ;  receives  commemorative  medal, 

54  ;  cost  of  removal  ......  56 

Vases  found  on  site  of  London  obelisk  ....  102 

Vatican  obelisk,  re-erection  of,  .  .  .  110-118,155 

Vessels.  See  Boats;  Rafts;  also  “Cleopatra”;  “  Des- 
soug”  ;  “  Luxor”  ;  “Olga.” 

Victor,  P.,  cited  ........  155 

Victoria  Embankment.  See  Thames  Embankment. 

Villa  Celimontana.  See  Villa  Mattei. 

Villa  Mattei  obelisk  .  .  .  .  .  .  .134 

Viridite  in  the  syenite  .  .  .  .  .  .  .167 


Visitors,  to  N.  Y.  obelisk  at  Alexandria,  1  ;  at  turning  of 
the  obelisk,  15  ;  to  the  “  Dessoug  ”  at  Gibraltar,  29  ; 
in  N.  Y.,  30  ;  at  laying  corner-stone,  34  ;  at  disem¬ 
barking  obelisk,  40  ;  at  re-erection,  46  ;  at  presen¬ 
tation  ceremonies,  48  ;  at  raising  Paris  obelisk,  91; 
at  launching  London  obelisk,  103  ;  at  its  re-erection, 


106;  at  lowering  Vatican  obelisk  .  .  .  -113 

Voyage,  of  “Dessoug,”  29-30;  of  “Luxor,”  88;  of  “Cleo¬ 
patra”  ........  104-105 

Vulliamy,  designs  for  castings  for  London  obelisk  .  .  107 

Vyse,  Col.  H.,  cited  ........  100 


Wadi  Nasb  obelisk  . . 

Walker,  J.,  plan  for  removing  London  obelisk 

Walker,  S.  A., . 

Wansted,  fragment  of  obelisk  at, . 

Water,  proportion  in  the  mortar,  168  ;  in  the  cements  . 
Water,  used  in  cleavage  of  obelisks,  147  ;  transportation 

on,  by  ancients . 

Water-spouts  ......... 

Water-tight  compartments  in  the  “Cleopatra  ”  .  101 

Ways  beams  for  transport  of  obelisk  in  N.  Y.  . 


143-144 
100 
.  48 

•  139 

.  169 


151 

3° 

104 

43 


PAGE 

Ways  for  moving  obelisk  to  the  “  Luxor  ”  .  .  .86 

Wedges  used  in  cleavage  of  obelisks  .  .  .  147,  148 

Weight,  of  N.  Y.  obelisk,  25,  26,  42  ;  and  caisson,  20  ;  of 
its  pedestal,  25,  32  ;  of  its  base  and  steps,  27  ;  of 
its  clamps,  46  ;  of  its  new  crabs,  46  ;  of  Paris  obe¬ 
lisk,  83  ;  of  its  pedestal,  90  ;  of  London  obelisk,  99, 

102  ;  of  Vatican  obelisk,  112  ;  of  obelisks,  table,  145  ; 
of  blocks  moved  by  ancient  Egyptians,  152,  153  ;  of 

syenite . .  .  .  '  161 

Wendel,  Dr.,  analysis  of  iron  clamp  found  under  N.  Y. 


obelisk  ........  170,  172 

Werner,  A.  G.,  quoted . 163,  165 

Westropp  cited . 141,  143 

Wharton,  W.  A.,  plan  for  removing  London  obelisk  .  99 

Whitin,  L.  F.,  advances  money  for  removal  of  N.  Y.  obe¬ 
lisk  . 5 

Whiting,  Lieut. -Comdr.  W.  H.,  in  charge  of  guard  of  honor 

at  re-erection  of  N.  Y.  obelisk  ....  47 

Whitthorne,  W.  C., . 57 

Wigner,  G.  W.,  specific  gravity  of  syenite  .  .  .161 

Wilkinson  cited,  62,  68,  69,  70,  119,  143,  147,  149,  150, 


151.  I52,  i53.  i54,  i55.  iS7 

Wilks,  Col.,  quoted  .  . . 148,  157 

Wilson,  E.,  97,  98,  101,  1 12  ;  agreement  with  Mr.  Dixon 

for  removing  London  obelisk . 100 

Wood.  See  Timber. 

Worship  of  obelisks  an  error . 59 

Young,  translation  of  hieroglyphs . 140 

Zircon,  in  the  syenite,  166,  167  ;  in  Germantown  amphi- 

bole-granite  .......  167-168 

Zirkel,  F.,  cited . 167 

Zoega  cited,  74,  124,  126,  127,  130,  133,  134,  135,  136, 

i37,  x39>  141,  IS2.  i57,  160 
Zucovich,  E.,  .........  29 

Zulficar  Pacha  present  at  the  turning  of  the  N.  Y.  obelisk,  15 


■ 


^)l cyaa!  rot  10 

/Oozs 


THE  GETTY  CENTER 
UBRARY 


